Sitting of 8 March 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered further on Wednesday 15 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—

  Public Appointments
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations she has received on the criteria used for making public appointments. [112254]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend occasionally receives representations on the matter. To my knowledge, she has received no such representations in the past six months.
  Mr. Amess: Will the Minister confirm that there is no political bias whatsoever in health authority appointments? If there is no such bias, will he explain to the House why, when Southend primary care trust was established against doctors' wishes, we were presented with a choice between two Labour activists to serve on the trust, and that the Labour activist who was appointed happened to be the chairman of South Essex health authority, which had been the subject of a critical report? Will the Minister also explain why the Government have allowed Thurrock community trust to take over the Southend trust—again allowing the appointment of a chairman who suits the Government's agenda?
  Mr. Stringer: I can confirm that appointments to NHS bodies are made solely on merit. I find the hon. Gentleman's comments absolutely astonishing. He is a representative of the Conservative party whose spokesperson said, when it was in government, that she had never knowingly appointed a Labour person to any body. That is one reason why we have a transparent system and people are appointed on merit.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that one of the substantial
  990
  differences in appointments to public bodies under this Administration is the significant increase in the number of women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds who are now represented on such bodies?
  Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can confirm that, at present, 50 per cent. of the new appointments to non-departmental public bodies are women. That has led to an increase in the proportion of women on all bodies from 34 to 39 per cent. The number of people from ethnic minority communities who are being appointed is now at 12.5 per cent. of all appointments. That means that, in the total composition of the bodies, their number has gone up from 4.7 to 8.5 per cent. That is in line with the Government's commitment to increase the diversity on non-departmental public bodies.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I listened to the Minister's comments, but was there anything in the Nolan report that criticised the process of selection and appointment to health bodies?
  Mr. Stringer: I assume that the right hon. Lady refers to the latest Neill report. Under the previous system, independent assessors were not within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In future, independent assessors, who were not part of the Nolan procedures, will come under the guidance of Dame Rennie Fritchie.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Dr. Brian Iddon: What role the drug action teams are playing in the delivery of the Government's anti-drug strategy. [112256]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Drug action teams have a crucial role in the delivery of the national drugs strategy. They consist of agencies, such as probation, health, education, police authorities and local authorities, and they are the main mechanisms for delivery on the ground.
  All drug action teams are required to plan and deliver an effective programme of anti-drug activities in their area that is in line with the national strategy.
  Dr. Iddon: In the Bolton drug action team area, the community drug team has been hitting a target of four weeks waiting lists. Unfortunately, the waiting list has increased to six weeks because of a difficulty in recruiting staff, and, of course, waiting times in other DAT areas are much longer. What are the Government doing to ensure that more trained staff are made available, especially in view of the new demand expected from arrest referral schemes?
  Mr. McCartney: This week, advertisements will be placed in a range of the press in Britain for applications to be made for the 300 new personnel to work at a local level. In addition to that, my hon. Friend's borough, Bolton, has benefited from an allocation of resources for the new arrest referral schemes. A total of £20 million has been allocated nationally and £1.3 million has been allocated for Greater Manchester. A range of schemes is

  991
  also in place, including an aftercare programme in Bolton, for those who need to reintegrate into the community as they recover from drugs misuse.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that politics should not be involved in dealing with such a pernicious scourge to the nation? Is it not strange that a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive was not prepared to preside over a meeting of agencies because the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has done such a splendid job in dealing with drugs misuse, was present?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for a non-partisan, non-political approach. I say that each time I come to the Dispatch Box both at Question Time and in Adjournment debates. I concur with that.
  In relation to Northern Ireland, it is our job to encourage all UK agencies to co-operate with the police, the health and probation services, community groups, local authorities and parent organisations to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach in the prevention of drug misuse and to bring to justice, and have jailed, those who sell drugs to our young people.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Opposition welcome the apparent fall in the number of young people taking drugs following the successful foundation of drug action teams, which were a primary feature of the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", introduced by the then Leader of the House, Tony Newton, who is now in the other place. Will the Minister confirm that, while that trend is encouraging, there must be no let up in drug prevention efforts? Will he outline what action is being taken to support drug action teams in the nationwide introduction later this year of drug treatment and testing orders?
  Mr. McCartney: I, too, welcome the figures from Exeter university, but we should be cautious because much more needs to be done. However, they are another welcome sign that the 10-year strategy is beginning to bear fruit. We must now build on the clear indication that, although young people are more likely to be approached about drugs, there is a growing awareness among them about the dangers of drug abuse, which should be welcomed by all. We shall shortly make an announcement about measures to ensure that each drug action team correlates with its local authority area, and we shall be making decisions about cross-cutting and funding, which I think the hon. Lady will find satisfactory and will support.
  I make this commitment to the hon. Lady: drug action teams are at the heart of our planning and decision making to ensure that the referral schemes are successful. I invite the hon. Lady to meet me to discuss our decisions on funding and cross-cutting issues.

  Business and Civil Service Secondments
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If she will make a statement on progress in temporary secondments of (a) people from business and industry to Government Departments and (b) civil servants to business and industry. [112257]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The "Modernising Government" White Paper and Sir Richard Wilson's recent report to the Prime Minister on civil service reform made it clear that the Government are keen to promote the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. Such opportunities can take many forms, ranging from temporary secondments, to short-term attachments, to job sharing and joint training.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the initiative has been gathering pace year on year since at least the mid-1980s? In accepting that the country can benefit from the exchange of ideas and experience between business and the civil service, will she consider the possibility of making it the practice that civil servants above a certain grade should be seconded, as a sabbatical, to industry or business, if not for a year every seven years, at least for three months?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The scheme has been running since the 1970s and recently we have done what we can to expand it because there is no doubt about the advantages that it brings in terms of the exchange of ideas, creativity and a learning process from which all can benefit. We have recently tried to expand it beyond the business community, which has been the focus of the scheme since the 1970s, to include all groups represented in the community, such as the voluntary sector and trade unions, so that there is a greater exchange of ideas and practices between bodies across our communities.
  The idea of a sabbatical has potential and I shall consider it, but, at the moment, we are considering inequalities in funding between exchanges which limit many in the voluntary sector from benefiting from such a scheme. However, we shall include the idea in our consideration of the expansion of the programme.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our manufacturing sector still has a great role to play in the creation of wealth, even though that was not accepted in the Thatcher era? Is not it important to ensure that there are more secondments in that area so that civil servants understand the problems facing manufacturing industry?
  Marjorie Mowlam: There is no doubt that manufacturing industry did an enormous amount for this country in the 1970s and we owe it a great debt. We will benefit from exchanges in the manufacturing, retail and voluntary sectors, because only through the exchange of ideas is progress made. The numbers are increasing in business and the voluntary sector, and trade unions have made an important contribution, with discussions between the National Audit Office and the Trades Union Congress about the possibility of exchanges. We look forward to further progress. I concur with my hon. Friend's sentiments.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister ensure that when there are secondments or short-term contracts for appointments in the civil service,

  993
  the question of compromising the duty under "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that public resources should not be used for party political purposes will never arise?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I am not sure what that has to do with secondments, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that public resources are not used for political purposes, as has been made clear time and again from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Lansley: How then can the Minister reconcile that duty with the appointment of Mr. Joe McCrea, who was for eight years special adviser to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as the head of the so-called knowledge network inside the Cabinet Office? Will she undertake to ensure that in that role and with his responsibility for other permanent civil servants he will play absolutely no part in the London mayoral election campaign? Will she ensure that no material produced by that unit in the Cabinet Office will be used in that campaign, or that if London material is produced it is all published on the internet between now and 4 May?
  Marjorie Mowlam: All the work done in that unit will be put on the net so there will be no question of work being done that even the hon. Gentleman will not see. Whatever individuals' past may be, and whatever political party or business they may have been involved in, we will work by the recruitment procedures outlined in the Civil Service Commissioner's recruitment code: for secondments of more than 12 months, there has to be a field of candidates; all secondees are told that they are subject to the Official Secrets Act; all secondees are required to observe the civil service management code, including the code of confidentiality; and consideration will be given to any potential conflicts of interest, and if there is any suspicion of such a conflict, the secondment will be abandoned.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Christopher Chope: What action she has taken, pursuant to the report of the performance and innovation unit about cross-cutting in Government. [112258]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Action is being taken on the report, "Wiring it up: Accountability and Incentives for Joined-up Government", and implementation will be monitored by the modernising government project board, chaired by the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I will report on progress across the whole broad front early next year.
  Mr. Chope: Does not last week's shambles over Mozambique expose the whole myth of joined-up government? Over two days, two Departments were arguing over £2 million at the same time as the Government were announcing that they had spent £92 million of taxpayers' money on their own advertising
  994
  last year. Does the Minister agree with the conclusion of the leading article in The Times on Saturday, which says:
  This clash of budgets and egos cost lives that speed could have saved …The No. 10 boast of fast delivery rings hollow.?
  Marjorie Mowlam: No, I disagree, for the simple reason that the Government have succeeded in doing more, faster, than any other in terms of giving aid to Mozambique, getting real help to the people there. The most important thing was to get the most help possible to the people who needed it quickly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made it clear from the start that we could get more help quickly to the people in the region by using helicopters hired in the region. Subsequently, further help has been dispatched, and the detail has been in the papers about what we have done in water purification, sanitation and temporary housing. The reality is the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have delivered real help in a pragmatic, practical way.
  I am not ashamed of what we spent on advertising. We have advertised policies that will make a difference to people's lives and we want to ensure that people know what is happening so that they can benefit.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her visit to the glorious city of Lancaster only a couple of weeks ago was the epitome of joined-up government, because she met people who are bringing excellent education, health and economic development policies to bear on most socially excluded communities in the city, in line with excellent Government policies to reduce unemployment? All that is aiding the city enormously.
  Marjorie Mowlam: It was an enjoyable visit to Lancaster, not least because it showed that when a community buys into the changes that have been proposed—I met people from the business community and the voluntary sector, local politicians and trade unionists to see how best the policies could be implemented—it has a real chance of succeeding.

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Desmond Browne: If she will make a statement on the progress being made in the achievement of civil service recruitment targets for people with disabilities. [112260]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Government are determined to tackle the under-representation of disabled people in the whole civil service. To that end, the Government have set a target to have people with disabilities comprising 3 per cent of the senior civil service by 2005.
  Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I welcome the fact that a target of doubling the number of people with disabilities in the senior civil service has been set for the next five years. To my knowledge, there are no senior civil servants based in my constituency, but there are civil servants, and people with disabilities are conspicuous by their absence from their ranks. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to increase

  995
  the proportion of people with disabilities at all levels in the civil service? Can he give an indication of when the commitment to require Departments to set targets at all levels, which was set out in chapter 6, paragraph 25 of the White Paper, will be achieved?
  Mr. Stringer: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to improve the representation of disabled people throughout the civil service. At present, all Departments and the lower echelons of the civil service are setting targets that will be achievable by those Departments, and those targets will be made public in the near future. To encourage a positive attitude to people with disabilities, the Government are supporting the two ticks symbol, which has been awarded to the Cabinet Office today.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that sufferers from multiple sclerosis are today staging an important rally in Parliament, backed by—among others—the all-party group on the subject, will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the victims of that appalling degenerative disease will invariably find Government Departments to be model employers?
  Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can confirm that there is no sense in the Government setting targets for disabled people within Departments without having the will and the money to adapt offices and machinery to enable disabled people to work there. That certainly applies to people who are suffering from multiple sclerosis.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my hon. Friend consult the Disability Rights Commission, whose presence we all welcome, for practical advice on issues such as hearing loops, Braille and physical access? Will he seek to ensure that Government Departments become a beacon for best practice for the whole of British industry and commerce, in both the private and public sectors?
  Mr. Stringer: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Government should be a model employer to set an example to the whole employment sector. There is often much good will towards people with disabilities, but employers do not always know how to make it possible for people with disabilities to enter the work force.
  Although the Disability Rights Commission will not be up and running until 1 April, we shall certainly be taking advice about adaptations, as my right hon. Friend suggests.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce: What progress is being made on reducing the time taken by Ministers to respond to hon. Members' letters. [112261]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Government are determined to improve the response time to letters from hon. Members. We are making steady progress to that
  996
  end. Within the next month, a table will be published that compares the timing of departmental replies against the targets set for each Department.
  Mr. Bruce: The Minister will know that every table on the subject published by the Government shows that things are going backwards, not forwards. I am sure that every hon. Member will recognise the example that I shall give. A Mr. Newsham of Weymouth wrote to me on 9 January 1999. I sent a two-page letter off to him on 11 January, and I also sent a copy to the Minister, which was acknowledged on 14 January. A delegation—
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is enough of the example. The hon. Gentleman should now ask the Minister how long it took to reply to the letter. That is the bottom line.
  Mr. Bruce: The target is 20 days for a reply, but in this case we are at 424 days, and counting. When will the Government do something about a reply?
  Mr. Stringer: If the letter is as long as the question, it is probably still being read. The hon. Gentleman said that matters are going backwards. I think that he will be pleasantly surprised when he sees the tables to be published later this year. I think that he will be pleased at the progress being made.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sure that the Minister will accept that hon. Members of all parties have similar horror stories, and I shall not quote another to him. However, does he accept that being encouraged to table parliamentary questions is not a satisfactory alternative when the delays in answers to letters are so long? Hon. Members are put in an invidious position. I have figures showing the number of written questions on a named date that are answered in time. Responses are getting distressingly late. Although only a third of Cabinet Office responses are late, the figure is two thirds for both the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Does the Minister accept that, although some Departments have made some improvements, the general position is deteriorating?
  Mr. Stringer: I do not accept that the general position is deteriorating. In fact, it is improving. However, I agree that the targets set by the Government are not being met at present. The Government are doing everything possible to improve response times.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Neil Turner: What progress has been made in implementing the reports of the social exclusion unit. [112262]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I can confirm that good progress is being made towards achieving the Government's targets on the four reports that have been published by the social exclusion unit. Those reports were "School Truancy and Exclusion", published in May 1998, "Rough Sleeping",

  997
  published in July 1998, "Teenage Pregnancy", published in June 1999, and "Bridging the Gap", published in July 1999.
  A draft report for consultation, on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, is due to be launched in early April.
  Mr. Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I am sure that we all look forward to the report coming out in April. However, does she accept that strategies by themselves are not enough, and that what is needed is action on the ground to deliver services? In particular, does she agree that, to deliver those strategies, we need the required investment, and the involvement with local communities of all levels of government?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Change is effective only when people have ownership of it. That is why the new deal for communities is a key element in neighbourhood renewal. It will provide £800 million over the next three years to ensure that the pathfinder projects are in place. If communities buy into those projects, we will have a much better chance of achieving good success.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the social exclusion unit be turning its attention to the plight of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has now been excluded from the Labour party, or to the plight of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is increasingly excluded from any possibility of getting Labour votes?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Neither.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mrs. Brinton: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the first 19 health service walk-in centres opens in my constituency on 10 April? Furthermore, will he take this opportunity to agree that such town and city health centre provision not only helps make health care more accessible but is a very good first step towards reducing health inequality?
    The Prime Minister: National health walk-in centres are a very important innovation in making the health service more accessible to people. It is all part, of course, of the extra money that we are putting into the health service. We are going to build on the success this week of the 2,000 nurse recruitment campaign which was launched last week. It will become a permanent feature of
    998
    the national health service. I can tell the House that, as at noon today, almost 15,000 calls had been taken by the national health service careers line from nurses who want to work in the national health service.
    Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister give the latest figures for the fall in police numbers in London and the rise in street crime in London since he took office?
    The Prime Minister: The strength of the Metropolitan police fell by more than 2,000 between 1993 and 1998. It is correct that there has been another slight fall between then and now, but I am pleased to say that the Metropolitan police force has been allocated additional funds from the crime fighting fund which will enable it to recruit some 1,100 new officers over the next three years.
    Mr. Hague: The actual fall in the number of police officers in London is 792 since the right hon. Gentleman took office. Police numbers rose by 16,000 under the previous Government. Metropolitan police studies show street crime up by 50 per cent. It does not take a genius to work out the link between the two. Was not the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) right for once when he said:
    The real deterrent to crime is police on the streets, and we have less police on the streets today than the day Labour was elected.
    And he knows, because he has had something stolen from him. Will the Prime Minister now give us the forecast change in the number of officers in the Metropolitan police force for the next three years?
    The Prime Minister: I have just said it. As a result of the funds from the crime fighting fund, we can now recruit an extra 1,100 officers. As for the quotation from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), it is pretty obvious whom the Conservative party is supporting, and it is not its own candidate.
    Mr. Hague: It is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister is not even able to give a factual answer to a factual question. He should have another look in his folder—this is not under F for falsehoods but under D for disasters.
    The actual numbers were given by the Home Secretary in parliamentary answers last month. Some 2,800 officers will be joining the police force in London in the next three years and 3,900 will be leaving. That is the Home Secretary's own expectation. Burglary in London is up by 5 per cent., car crime is up by 9 per cent., street crime is up by 50 per cent. and ballot rigging is up by 100 per cent. Is not this appalling situation the direct responsibility of a Prime Minister who is, yet again, all mouth and no delivery?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman on the numbers when he was a member of the Conservative Government: police numbers fell rather than rose, and crime in London doubled during the time of that Government. It is correct that without the additional funding we would not be able to recruit additional officers, but the right hon. Gentleman's party is opposed to that extra funding. As for crime and street crime, his party is opposed to the tough measures on drug offending that this party is introducing in the teeth of Conservatives'

    999
    opposition. If his party were to support the Bill that the House considered last night, we would have an extra £120 million to fight crime and recruit police officers, but he prefers to spend it on lawyers instead.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on his plans to meet farmers' leaders? When he does, will he give special attention to the unsubsidised pig and poultry sector? The sector's high-quality standards, such as those at Premier Poultry and many pig farms in my constituency, are being undermined by the strong pound and the cost of BSE precautions.
    The Prime Minister: Of course the pig farming industry is in serious crisis, and there are a number of problems, not the least of which are BSE-related costs. Another problem is the additional cost of high animal welfare standards: for example, pig tethering. That was introduced in a Conservative private Member's Bill. It was a perfectly justifiable measure; but when we hear that the Leader of the Opposition is going to the National Farmers Union complaining about BSE costs when his lot gave us BSE, and complaining about pig tethering when he voted for it, we know where true hypocrisy lies.
    I am meeting the farming industry. We are going to sit down and work out a short-term plan to get the industry through its immense short-term difficulties and a long-term plan so that we do not carry on simply giving out more subsidy without its being tied to a proper strategy for the future.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is not the fair conclusion to draw from the events of the past few days that far from the Prime Minister being a control freak, he is in fact a control failure? The Leader of the Opposition asks him which of the candidates for London mayor he supports. Assuming that the Prime Minister is supporting the Labour candidate, to whom is he inclined to give his second preference vote?
    The Prime Minister: As I am confident that we will be winning the campaign, we do not have to offer a second vote to anybody.
    Mr. Kennedy: It is a sure sign that a Government are on the skids when they start to ignore the opinion polls. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that both the Labour candidate and the independent candidate voted in the Division Lobby for the Government's plans for the tube, and that Steve Norris, the Conservative candidate, has expressed some sympathy with them? Now that we are on to the issues of the election, is it not fair for Londoners to conclude that if they want a bond issue and a continuing legitimate public stake in a modernised tube, the only candidate who has put that forward is the Liberal Democrat, Susan Kramer?
    The Prime Minister: To be blunt, I do not think that the opinion polls are particularly in favour of anyone on either side of the House. On the public-private partnership, surely the best plan is to get the private sector to do the construction work and the public sector to run
    1000
    the trains and be responsible for safety. That is why the PPP is sensible, and I could not put it better than this:
    The Docklands Light Railway Extension, financed through a public-private partnership, was completed early with no cost overrun. That shows that PPP can work.
    That was my candidate in the London elections.
    The alternative is what Norris, the Conservative candidate, was in charge of during the four years he was Minister of Transport in London—the Jubilee line, which had an £1.5 billion overrun and was two years late. Only the Liberal Democrats could be silly enough now to be supporting it.
    Lorna Fitzsimons: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are aware that today is international women's day; I trust that all hon. Members will join me in celebrating the contribution of all women to our societies, communities and families. Will my right hon. Friend welcome today's target, published by the women's unit and Ministers for Women, of 50 per cent. representation of women in public life? Does he agree with the comment of the chairman of Unilever that any woman who has brought up any children is one of the most experienced project managers? Is he surprised, therefore, that the Opposition's document "Clear Blue Water" suggests scrapping the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Opportunities Commission and all other fair pay provisions? Is that not utterly out of step with today's society?
    The Prime Minister: What I heard of my hon. Friend's question, I agree with. She is absolutely right. One thing that has of course changed is that, whereas there were only 19 women in Parliament in 1979, today there are 121, of whom 101 are Labour. We recognise, as others do, that there is still a long way to go, and we intend to get there.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Why are the people of Reigate and Banstead and their elected councillors unfit to decide how many new houses should be built in their borough?
    The Prime Minister: It is not that they are unfit to do that. We must respond, under normal procedure, to the plans that have been put forward—both the Serplan and the independent consultants'. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement was a very sensible way through, which allows us to increase brownfield building. It makes allowances for the fact that we are to have more housing in the south-east, but does so in a sensible way that allows us to match and monitor it as years progress.
    It does no good for Conservative Members to think that, if they were in government, they would be coming up with a solution that entailed no new homes in the south-east. It would not be like that at all. We must balance the need for more homes with the need to protect our countryside, and I think that the Deputy Prime Minister has achieved that balance.
    Mr. Phil Sawford: Would my right hon. Friend consider a visit to Rothwell, in my constituency? Is he aware that, following 18 years of government by the Conservative party, it was possible for children in that

    1001
    town to spend their entire school life in a mobile classroom? By the end of this year, however, owing to the policies of this Government, no children in that town will be taught in a mobile classroom.
    The Prime Minister: More than 300,000 five, six and seven-year-olds are in classes of under 30, and as a result of the new deal money, thousands of schools have had the additional classrooms that they need. There are still, however, schools that require more work, and we hope to get there as soon as we possibly can.
    Mr. David Heath: To return to health, is the Prime Minister aware that waiting lists in the south-west are now worse than on the day he was elected? Does he know that one cannot get an NHS dentist for love or money? Does he know that there are fully equipped wards, such as one in the Verrington hospital in my constituency, which have been closed since Christmas because they cannot get staff? Does he realise that people believe what they see and not what he tells them? Is it not time for a Budget that forgets the spin and is squarely aimed at putting the NHS back on its feet?
    The Prime Minister: Let the hon. Gentleman not pretend that the Liberal Democrats could fund all the promises that they make on schools, hospitals, pensions, local government, industry and whatever comes into their minds from a 1p increase in taxation, because that is not true. Yes, there are hospitals that need more nurses and staff. That is why we have launched the recruitment campaign and why there are now 4,500 more nurses and midwives in the health service than when we took office. Latest figures show an 80 per cent. increase in those registering for training. Over the next few years, as those recruits come through, there will still be wards that need more nurses, but nurses are being trained, they will get there and the health service will be rebuilt.
    Mr. David Crausby: Although the threat of drowning has receded for the people of Mozambique, the dangers of starvation and economic instability certainly have not. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this Government will do all in their power to alleviate those longer-term problems and urgently consider the cancellation of Mozambique's debt?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the Chancellor has given the commitment to 100 per cent. cancellation of the Mozambique debt. The lead that he has given on debt relief throughout the developing world is appreciated in that part of the world. In respect of Mozambique, we have acted more quickly and given more than probably any other country—not only £8 million in direct emergency aid, but more assistance. Both the United Nations emergency co-ordinator, Ross Mountain, and President Chissano of Mozambique, have paid tribute to this country's efforts. However, I should like to pay tribute to our service people and aid workers who have performed heroically in difficult and harrowing circumstances.
    Mr. William Hague: When the Deputy Prime Minister told the Financial Times yesterday that he was not a fan of directly elected mayors, was he making a statement of Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is hardly news, but my right hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to his view. However, I believe that a directly elected mayor for London is the right course.
    Mr. Hague: First, will the right hon. Gentleman remind the Deputy Prime Minister, who says that he is not a fan of the idea, that he is introducing the Bill bringing it in? [Interruption.] Well, at least he now knows that he is introducing that Bill. Secondly, before we set up more devolved institutions and positions, has the Prime Minister learned the lesson that it is totally pointless and ultimately self-defeating for the selections and elections to those positions to be rigged, manipulated and dictated from No. 10 Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: We are the Government who have, in accordance with our manifesto commitment, given people the vote back in London. The right hon. Gentleman supported the party that took the vote away from them. As for procedures in the Labour party, I will be responsible for those, because I believe in being responsible for my party. It is completely pathetic that the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the Opposition—leader of the Conservative party—is driven, first, to support Lord Archer; then, when he cannot get Lord Archer, Mr. Norris; and, now that he cannot get Mr. Norris elected, Ken Livingstone. What a comment on his leadership of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Hague: What a comment on the right hon. Gentleman's leadership that he has obviously learned nothing from what has happened. Only a Prime Minister of breathtaking arrogance could have learned nothing from what has happened. He imposed on Wales a First Secretary whom nobody wanted in the job, including the First Secretary himself. He has imposed a stooge candidate in London, then tried to deny free post to candidates so that he can impose the stooge candidate on everybody else. Now we hear claims that Lord Rodgers, the Liberal leader in the House of Lords, was offered more Liberal peers in return for a pledge of good behaviour. Are not the Government creating a rotten political culture of cronyism and rigging? Does not the responsibility for that rest with the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Oh, I see—having backed the independent candidate for London mayor, the right hon. Gentleman is now backing the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. May I point out the figures? The previous Prime Minister gave the Liberal Democrats 13 peers in seven years. I have given them 24 in two and half years—what generosity.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: More, more.
    The Prime Minister: I know they want more. The thing about the Liberal Democrats is that they always want more.

    1003
    As for democracy, we have given the Scots a Parliament and the Welsh devolution; the Leader of the Opposition opposed that—[HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, we, the Labour Government, have given them democracy. We have given people back the vote in London that the Conservatives took away. Who are the democrats? The ones who scrapped the Greater London council and took away the vote, the ones who refused devolution in Scotland and Wales, the ones who never introduced change in the House of Lords—or the ones who have made our constitution fit for the 21st century?
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is national no smoking day? It encourages people to quit smoking and is supported by many national newspapers and the BBC. Does he agree that the most important priority is to stop children starting to smoke, as more than 500 under-age boys and girls every day take their first puff? By the age of 20, more than half of them will be hooked. Does my right hon. Friend have a plan?
    The Prime Minister: As someone who gave up smoking, I thoroughly applaud national no smoking day. Smoking causes some 46,000 cancer deaths a year, and more than 120,000 people a year in the UK die from smoking-related causes. Smoking costs the national health service £1.5 billion a year, which is the equivalent of 15 new hospitals. When we rebuild the health service, it is important that we also take the measures on prevention and public health care which allow us to put the resources into the health service where they are really needed.
    Mr. Stephen Day: On 5 December 1999, the Prime Minister said that the north-south divide did not exist. Yesterday he denied that he had said that, and claimed that it did exist. That is par for the course for the Prime Minister. If he had spent more time in Sedgefield and less in Chequers and Islington, where he no doubt spends his time seeking ways to do over members of his party who have the courage to disagree with him, he might have come to that fairly obvious conclusion somewhat earlier.
    The Prime Minister: The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. When I issued the north-south report—[Interruption.] When was I last in Sedgefield? Last weekend. As for the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is wrong. I did not say that the north-south divide did not exist. I said that the disparities within a region are as great as, if not greater than, the disparities between regions.
    In respect of the region that the hon. Gentleman represents, what would a Government who cared about such matters do? They would introduce the new deal for the unemployed, because the region contains areas of high unemployment. What did the hon. Gentleman do? He opposed the new deal. Such a Government would introduce the working families—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman will have to listen now. Such a Government would introduce the working families tax credit for low income families, to make work pay. What did the hon. Gentleman do? He opposed the working families tax credit.
    1004
    We introduced the development agency for the north-west that allowed us to bring in business investment. What did the hon. Gentleman do? He is committed to scrapping the north-west development agency. Finally, we introduced the minimum wage for low-paid workers and he opposed it.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Monday night, some 5 million or 6 million of our fellow citizens watched a programme produced by John Pilger, showing horrendous scenes of what was happening in Iraq. Can we be happy to pursue a policy for nine years that has such an effect?
    The Prime Minister: No, we cannot be happy to pursue such a policy at all. We are not happy to pursue it, but the way to get the sanctions lifted is for Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq to come into line with UN resolutions, and stop trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.
    This Government have taken the lead in the United Nations in trying to find a better method of ensuring that food and medicine get through to the Iraqi people. The opportunity exists for Saddam Hussein to feed his people and to provide them with medicines. He has billions of oil dollars that he could use for that purpose, but he does not. He uses the money to prop up his regime, and spends it on weapons of mass destruction.
    If my hon. Friend wants to help the people in Iraq, I urge him, as I have urged him often, to help put pressure on the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein to fulfil their humanitarian obligations. The way to end sanctions is for them to come into line with the United Nations resolutions. If they do that, no one will be more pleased than the Government.
    Sir Archie Hamilton: Now that the Deputy Chief Whip has joined the ranks of Labour Members who send their children to selective schools, will the Government drop their ideological hostility to selection?
    The Prime Minister: People are perfectly entitled to send their children to whatever school they wish. However, if they send their children to selective schools, the taxpayer should not subsidise them. The difference between us and the Conservative party is that the Conservative party would reintroduce the assisted places scheme. That would mean that, for the sake of a few children who are able to get into a private school, hundreds of thousands of kids in primary schools would be in larger classes. People are entitled to spend their money however they wish, but the state should spend its money on state schools.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When every Member of Parliament has young constituents whose lives are blighted by drugs, will my right hon. Friend applaud the initiative taken in Scotland, and will he give a positive lead in Europe to fight the scourge that blights so many lives and knows no national boundaries?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely and I welcome the drug enforcement agency in Scotland. It plays a major part in Scotland's fight against

    1005
    drugs. As my hon. Friend knows, it is vital that the United Kingdom work together on the matter. When I speak to the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, I shall set out the ideas that we have been developing with Keith Hellawell, who is in charge of the Government's drugs programme, to take forward the war on drugs on an international level to deal with drug dealers and break the drug chain.
    As the European Union enlarges, such co-operation will become increasingly important. Scotland needs to work with England in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom needs to work with Europe and Europe needs to work with the rest of the world.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In a prosperous country with a modern health service, it is unacceptable for people who have seen a consultant to wait more than a year for treatment. The Prime Minister knows that since he took over stewardship of the health service, the percentage of people who wait more than a year has doubled. My constituents were mesmerised by the Prime Minister speaking on the Frost programme and on "Newsnight", because one in 10 of them has to wait more than a year for treatment, yet in the Prime Minister's constituency, the figure is only one in 100. People who live in TS21 or 28 receive over £115 more for their health care than people who live in GU7 or 8—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must put her question.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does such a system put an end to the lottery of care or tackle inequalities?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady certainly gets the award for brass neck, given her stewardship of the health service. Yes, we want to reduce waiting lists. Waiting lists and waiting times have been reduced, but they have much further to fall. The only way to reduce them and keep them down is through additional investment in the national health service.
    Mrs. Bottomley indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: She may shake her head, but it is true. We need more resources, and change and modernisation in the health service. The Labour party is committed to that; the Conservative party is committed to cancelling it.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not unfortunate that the person who made the programme that
    1006
    has been mentioned and which was broadcast on Monday night minimised the responsibility of the criminal dictator of Iraq for the suffering of the people there? In acknowledging the necessity for sanctions, is it not important to try to find ways in which to assist the children who urgently need medicine, while bearing it in mind that the criminal dictator has never shown the slightest interest in the people who live in that country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Saddam Hussein co-operated with United Nations resolutions, money could go into Iraq to feed his country; the sanctions would be lifted and there would be no difficulty. However, he refuses to co-operate with the inspectors of weapons of mass destruction or to get money to his people through the oil for food regime. It is a tragedy; what is happening in Iraq to children and their families is terrible, but the answer is to ensure that Saddam Hussein comes back in line with international law. If he does not, the money will go to him, not to families in Iraq. It will be spent on weapons of mass destruction and we will be back where we were a few years ago.
    Instead of producing a programme that presented only one point of view, the makers of Monday night's programme should understand that the international community is desperate to get help to families in Iraq, but that we cannot do it at the expense of allowing Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Prime Minister recall coming to Cambridge during the election campaign and promising to reform the area cost adjustment, bearing in mind the fact that next year Cambridgeshire will spend £4.7 million above its education standard spending assessment and £8.4 million above its social services SSA to maintain current expenditure? It is absolutely clear that there will be no change in the formula this year, so what is his excuse for that broken promise?
    The Prime Minister: The area cost adjustment was the system that Conservative Members were perfectly happy to support for 18 years, but now we are getting extra money into social services, extra money into education and extra money into local authorities and health. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I remind every Conservative Member present, that they oppose that additional investment and the extra spending—they call it reckless and irresponsible. With typical Tory opportunism, they call for tax cuts and more spending at the same time. There is only one way that would lead—to boom and bust and cuts in services.

Protection of Human Genetic Sequence
3.31 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give protection to the human genetic sequence; to prevent the patenting of human genes; and for connected purposes.
There is a great deal of debate about science, including genetics, in the media at present, which makes the Bill somewhat topical. That topicality has been reinforced by the submissions that I have received since proposing to introduce it. I thank all those who have supplied me with background information to prepare for the debate, including the BioIndustry Association, which made its arguments on behalf of the industry. Although it may disagree with some of the points that I want to make, I appreciate it putting its case to me.
In 1996, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology produced a useful report entitled "Patents, Research and Technology", which kept ahead of the debate at that time—I recommend it to hon. Members—and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has tabled the very good early-day motion 298 on the subject. I agree with its sentiments entirely. However, some of the media debate can be disturbing in respect of the assumptions being made, especially about the public understanding of public policy issues in science and genetics in particular.
It is clear that the public contribution to the debate often lags behind the discussions in scientific and sometimes even political circles. That leaves many members of the public with the real worry that deals have already been done, which in turn leads to wider opposition and the polarisation of views. That was very clear in the debate about genetically modified organisms. My concern is that the gene patenting debate may represent a real risk of significant future public anger if we do not have a more comprehensive discussion now. That is part of my motivation for introducing the Bill to the House today.
Some of those who talk about science policy seem to think that only those with the relevant qualifications can understand and that ordinary people should be left out of the debate. Such a position is offensive in a democracy, as we shall all have to live with the results of decisions taken in science public policy. It also seriously underestimates most people's interest in, and understanding of, those issues. That attitude is more likely to generate an anti-science mood as people respond negatively to what they perceive to be scientific and technological arrogance.
The citizens of this country—men, women and children—are perfectly able to participate in the debate and will do so. We need to look for ways to improve public participation and to involve them better, rather than seek to restrict decisions to committees of experts. Some coverage does not help by referring to absurd examples that owe more to science fiction than science fact. For example, the debate about genetic patenting has been expressed in terms of private companies owning the biological material that is inside all of us so that, somehow, we would have to pay royalties to produce new cells containing those genes. That is no more the real issue than that the human cloning debate should be about brainless automata being created to donate their organs to the rest of us, although, when one listens to the questions
1008
in Prime Minister's Question Time, one wonders whether the Government already have the job of creating automata in hand.
The heart of the debate is about how to create the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people from the incredible potential that is now being realised by our ability to decode the human genetic sequence. Patent law is difficult to grasp, and the uncertainties will keep lawyers happy and well fed for many years to come. It is based on certain key principles that we established through legislation and through our international agreements, especially at European Union level, but increasingly at international level.
The most relevant legislation is the 1998 EU directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, article 5 of which states:
The human body, at the various stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions.
It goes on to say:
An element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element.
Hence the work created for lawyers in this area. The directive leaves major room for debate about what should constitute a patentable invention. There is some uncertainty about whether sequences can be patented, or only their specific applications.
The view of Myriad Genetics is that it can patent the genes, which is why it has attempted to secure patents on the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA and BRCA2. That has caused much of the current debate. Other companies are similarly seeking exclusive rights on particular genes through the EU patenting process. Their argument is that the only way to keep research going is by generating income from the results. I would argue that the rewards can instead come from the proper patenting of specific applications of the technology without granting patents on the genes themselves.
The analogy of a mousetrap patent has been used. It is better for a company to secure a patent on a mousetrap design than on the process of killing a mouse. However, I would argue that the patenting of human genes is equivalent to securing a patent on dead mice, rather than on a mousetrap. If that patent were secured, the dead mouse patent holder could seek royalties from anyone else who invents other methods for killing mice. It is that exclusivity over the material rather than the applications that is the major source of concern.
There will be some serious implications if we allow such an environment to develop. What will the costs be to the health service if the costs for genetic testing have to include royalties to the holder of the patent for that gene? What will be the effects on public research if the incentive to develop novel applications is tempered by the knowledge that those applications cannot go to market or be used for the public good in the public domain without negotiating with, and making payment to, the gene patent holder?
There are real ethical considerations. Although I do not subscribe to the notion that this will lead to the ownership of bits of our cells, there are nevertheless genuine concerns about where the commercial exploitability of such material should begin and end.

1009
In September last year, the Government sent out signals that they were looking to defend the public interest on this issue. It was reported that the Prime Minister was holding discussions with United States President Bill Clinton. When I recently asked the Prime Minister a question in the House, I was a little surprised to hear him say that no negotiations were taking place. I find it difficult to square that response with the report in The Guardian of 20th September 1999 entitled "Blair and Clinton push to stop gene patents". The report states:
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are negotiating an Anglo-American agreement to protect the 100,000 genes that control the human body. … The extraordinary deal—initiated by Mr. Blair—aims to prevent entrepreneurs profiting from gene patents and to ensure that the benefits of research are freely available.
Reports of discussions have been released under US freedom of information legislation, but the Government have gone strangely quiet since then.
There is an urgent need for a debate about our approach to the use of human genetic information. This urgency is reinforced by Tuesday's report in The Guardian, headed "Protocol on gene research is at risk as firm demands exclusive rights". Dr. John Sulston, the well-respected director of the Sanger Centre—one of the leading research institutes in the world and a proud British institution—has said of the US company Celera:
The emerging truth is absolutely extraordinary. They really intend to establish a complete monopoly … on the human genome for … at least five years."
Dr. Sulston says:
People ought to know about it.
I think that people are becoming aware of it, and that that awareness is growing daily. I believe that the Government can no longer refrain from making their view clear, and that they should, on an urgent basis, make progress with the negotiations begun so admirably in, I believe, September 1999—although that is now denied by the Prime Minister. I urge the House to demonstrate that it, too, takes the issue seriously by supporting the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Allan, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. David Heath, Dr. Brian Iddon, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Norman Baker and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN GENETIC SEQUENCE
Mr. Richard Allan accordingly presented a Bill to give protection to the human genetic sequence; to prevent the patenting of human genes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24th March, and to be printed [Bill 84]
Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

The National Health Service
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.41 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That this House deplores HM Government's clinical and financial mismanagement of the NHS; condemns the distortion of clinical priorities resulting from the Prime Minister's refusal to abandon the Government's flawed waiting list initiative, which is described by the medical profession as anathema to them and which has resulted in some of the sickest patients waiting longer than necessary for treatment; notes the financial chaos in Trusts and Health Authorities as a result of ministerial incompetence; and deprecates the misleading of the public about funding as a result of the Treasury's culture of repeatedly re-announcing financial decisions, and the practice of using the NHS as a means of providing publicity and photo opportunities for Ministers, putting political priorities before the morale of dedicated and hard-working NHS staff and to the detriment of patient care.
When the Government came to office nearly three years ago, their message was that there was nothing essentially wrong with the model of the national health service, but that the Conservatives in government had not wanted it to work properly, and that therefore it had not worked properly. The message was "Vote Labour and save the NHS", and a great deal of the Prime Minister's personal prestige was invested in that pledge. Huge expectations were raised about what the Government would be able to do, and on what time scale they would be able to do it. Today, we shall ask where those expectations are now and what has become of the NHS under Labour management.
Most countries are grappling with the health care debate, and our debates here resonate throughout Europe and the rest of the western world. Most western countries generally accept some form of mixed health provision, and engage in relatively mature debate. Our Prime Minister says that he has no ideological problem with the private sector, but the Secretary of State has. We have financial mismanagement, with repeated announcements of funding to secure headlines for Ministers. We have, at the centre of the Government's plans, a waiting list initiative that is almost universally condemned by the medical profession, which considers that it distorts clinical priorities. We have a system of management and a culture that are corroding the system from within, eating away at morale in the NHS and destroying the considerable good will, which, it must be admitted, the Government enjoyed when they came to office.
We intend today to examine the questions of finance and the waiting list initiative in detail, but first I want to deal briefly with the Government's style of management and the organisational structures. The last Government abolished a tier of NHS management to give more autonomy to trusts. We now have, roughly, an 80:1 management ratio, with 80 trust chairmen reporting to one regional authority. This Government, however, have insisted on a highly centralised style of management, involving a flood of policies, targets and directives that are entirely beyond the capacity of trusts. The result is poor communication, with a devolved structure of management but centralised control of management from Whitehall.

1011
We are seeing a non-stop series of knee-jerk reactions. It seems that, in the case of the present Government, the best way in which to get anything done—the best way in which to secure any new initiative—is to embarrass the Prime Minister, either in public or, especially, on television. The Prime Minister's embarrassment fund seems to be a bottomless pit: it is necessary only to ask him a difficult question on "Newsnight" and throw him a few embarrassing statistics, and he will have the Secretary of State running off to the next Department on Monday morning with a new initiative, pledging money—probably the same money that has been pledged before, but money none the less. We therefore have a fragmented finance process with arcane bidding mechanisms, in which no one really knows what is going on. The losers are the patients. Morale among staff is reduced. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with the problem of morale among general practitioners.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend mentions problems of morale in the NHS. Is he aware that the head of staff recruitment at Victoria hospital in Lichfield has told me that it is virtually impossible to recruit nurses to the hospital as, for the first time, its future and its services are under threat? Does he agree that that is appalling? For 18 years, the future of the Victoria and Hammerwich hospitals was assured. Now, both hospitals and their services are under threat.
Dr. Fox: I am more than happy to take my hon. Friend's word about the problem of recruiting nurses. The more general problem is retaining them once they have been recruited. We have been over the factors involved in the House: pay; conditions; lack of professional esteem from other colleagues, and sometimes from the public; and shift patterns in the NHS, which do not entice many who would like to stay in nursing. I am sure that my hon. Friend is more than capable of making sufficient political capital out of the difficulties in his area.
GPs throughout the country have complained about their loss of status, the steady erosion of their position in the medical profession and, in particular, the loss of their role of gate-keeper, which many were developing very well, especially towards the end of the previous Government's term of office.
GPs feel, for example, that there is a complete lack of co-ordination between NHS Direct and the rest of the primary care system. The many problems with NHS Direct are increasingly showing up. It is expensive, and consultants have complained that it is stripping nursing staff, especially from accident and emergency departments. We are at the ridiculous stage where nurses who are part of NHS Direct are pretending to be answerphones and being caught out only because they happen to cough. That is indicative of the ridiculous system that the Secretary of State is forcing through at pace. However, the morale problem among GPs will inevitably result in reduced patient care if the Government do not address it. Will the Minister mention that in particular when he replies?
Let us look at finance. We have two questions to ask: what is really happening to finance in the NHS and how is it affecting health care? The NHS Confederation says
1012
that 2000–01 is likely to be one of the toughest years on record. There are several reasons for that. The first is the front-loading of the comprehensive spending review. The rise in NHS spending is 4.7 per cent. in real terms in 1999–2000, falling to 4.5 per cent. this year and to 3.9 per cent. next year. However, we then have the unfunded pay awards. Although those are entirely laudable and I am sure that no one would object to any NHS staff receiving higher remuneration, as the average trust pay bill is rising by about 4.2 per cent. this year—not the 3.5 per cent. that the Government predicted—and as funding is likely to go down, as predicted, over the next three years in real terms, the recurring cost of the awards can be met only by a reduction in patient care. That is not a political judgment, but simple arithmetic. The Government will have to tell health authorities and trusts how to deal with that; otherwise, there will be a reduction in patient services.
Health authorities and trusts are being asked to deal with additional financial burdens. The European Union working-time directive is one. Holiday pay, for example, will cost more. Nurses will have to be paid the average rather than basic pay for nursing leave. Again, no one would begrudge nursing staff that, but it will be an extra financial burden on health authorities. Prescribing budgets in primary care will rise, with the drugs budget perhaps up by 11 per cent. this year.
Structural deficits are carried over from year to year. They are increasing and make the first claim on funds that are available in April. For example, I shall randomly pick hon. Members and look at the deficits that their health authorities face. It is predicted that the deficit of the health authority that serves the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), will be £8.5 million. The health authority in the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has a deficit of more than £1 million. The deficit for the health authority in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is predicted to be more than £5.5 million.
Those Ministers will be pleased to know that—by complete coincidence—the one member of their team whose health authority is not facing a deficit is that of the Secretary of State. Although I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the location of health authorities among constituencies is entirely coincidental, not all hon. Members—not even all health Ministers—have been able to obtain such privileged funding for our own health authorities.
What does the funding problem entail for a typical trust? Ministers say that they have been extremely generous in providing a 6.7 per cent. funding increase, which includes the extra allocation made at the end of last year, but basic inflation has been running at 2.6 per cent. If we add to the inflation figure the effects of superannuation, the working-time directive, reduced hours for junior doctors and capital charges excess, the 2.6 per cent. figure increases to about 5.78 per cent. If we add to that the costs of clinical governance and increases in drug costs, the figure increases by another 0.5 per cent. If we add to it the costs of dealing with the maintenance backlog, winter and ensuring a nursing skill mix, the figure increases by about another 1.8 per cent. Finally, if we add the 3 per cent. deficit, it becomes clear that, before we treat another patient or

1013
increase any type of patient care, there is 10.5 per cent. in extra costs. However, only 6.7 per cent. extra has been provided. That is not generous.
People will be wondering why the extra £21 billion that the Chancellor announced for NHS spending is not being spent on patient care. They will be wondering where all that money has gone. I am grateful to Peter Kellner for his very simple analysis of the matter. After inflation, the £21 billion—of which England is receiving £17.6 billion—yields a real increase, over three years, of £10.9 billion. We must then subtract from that figure the costs of unfunded wages, more elderly patients and the drug budget—in short, the costs of medical inflation—which yields an increase of only £5 billion over three years.
If we also take into account the deficits, we can appreciate why Lord Winston came to the view that the national health service was being starved of funds. Health authorities are beginning the year with negative funding.
Ministers try to pretend that they have provided much more money to the NHS than they have, but I caution them about that. In future, the public will not believe them when they promise—like the boy who cried wolf—more money for the NHS.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I have written to the chairman of Worcestershire health authority to raise precisely the point that my hon. Friend is making. Although she could not give me a substantive reply, when I asked her about all the costs that my hon. Friend has mentioned so far in his speech, she could not assure me that there would be one extra penny for improved patient care for anyone in Worcestershire. The situation is shameful. I am awaiting a further reply from the chairman.
Dr. Fox: The shame is not that the money is not available—although all hon. Members are worried about the lack of expansion in patient care—but that Ministers pretend that more money is being made available than they are providing. People find unacceptable the essential dishonesty of the process. My hon. Friend has described a part of the pattern of constant re-announcements and the distortion of information that is at the heart of the culture of the Government.
Helen Jones rose—
Dr. Howard Stoate: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that 6.7 per cent. was not generous. What sum would he consider to be generous, and what would Conservative Members do, if they were in power, to provide the increased funding for which he seems to be calling?
Dr. Fox: I did not say that the settlement was not generous, but that it was insufficient. I said that, given the added pressures that the Government have introduced—including the working time directive and all the other costs that I mentioned—extra pressure is being placed on the NHS budget. The Government are being dishonest with us. Although they say that they are providing a real increase, we all know that it is not a real increase. Across the country, people are asking why they are not seeing that extra money.
As I said, the Government came to power by raising expectations to a level that they themselves knew they could never fulfil. That promise of improving the situation
1014
far beyond what they knew they could accomplish has diminished the standing of politics in society and resulted in, for example, lower turnouts at elections.
Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Fox: I may give way in a moment.
There has been a pattern of distortion and reannouncements. For example, this week, the Secretary of State has talked about an increase in the number of cardiologists. On "On the Record", John Humphrys said:
The point is they are there, they're waiting, they're registrars, senior registrars or whatever. Professor Alberti—
the Government's adviser—
himself the source on these matters says they are there, but there is not the money to create the consultancy posts.
The Secretary of State replied
But that isn't true … That simply isn't true.
He has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. When confronted with a fact that they do not like, they simply deny that it exists.
Yesterday, I received a letter from a cardiologist who wrote as a result of comments that the Secretary of State made on the BBC. The cardiologist wrote:
He claimed that an expansion of consultant cardiologists could not take place immediately because it would take time to train such specialists. He stuck to this view despite the comments of Professor George Alberti to the contrary.
As a trained cardiologist looking for a consultant position, I take great issue with these comments because they are incorrect. There is in fact a surfeit of trained cardiologists in this country compared to consultant posts arising and projected to arise. It is estimated that there are about 50 trained cardiologists currently seeking consultant posts. I am one of three fully trained cardiologists … who face unemployment in the next few months following termination of our training posts under the new Calman scheme hellip; On the 21st January, I met with my local MP—
A Labour MP—
… to discuss the situation. I provided her with the above information, which she immediately relayed to Alan Milburn's department for comments. One would assume therefore that he was aware of the situation when he made his comments on the Today programme.
I do not know whether he was aware of that information or whether it was passed to him, but, as Secretary of State, I would expect him to know about it.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The hon. Gentleman mentioned Professor George Alberti. I wonder whether he has seen the statement issued, I think, today by the Royal College of Physicians. It says that
the College does not expect there to be any fully-trained unemployed cardiologists by the end of 2000 and indeed there are several unfilled posts at present.
Dr. Fox: Time will tell what will come to pass. I take the Secretary of State's comment to be a pledge that all those who are trained in cardiology will be found consultant posts by the end of the year. If any trained cardiologists have not been given new consultant posts created by the end of the year, we will know that what he has just said are simply words to get him through the debate and not a serious matter of policy.

1015
The Secretary of State told us to judge him on his record. In October 1999, he said that a £50 million boost to cardiac surgery was there to increase the number of operations by 10 per cent. over the next two years. However, of course, that was not new money as he was forced to admit later. He said that it was part of the extra £21 billion that the Government were putting into the NHS. It seems that the words "new" and "extra" in the Department of Health mean the same as the Home Office's use of the word "extra" in relation to policemen.
When the Secretary of State spoke about consultants, he said that there would be an increase in the number of heart specialists by more than 400 in the next six years. However, Dr. Peter Hawker of the British Medical Association's consultants committee said:
The 400 additional heart specialists announced today are already in the NHS as specialist registrars on the training ladder.
The Secretary of State is trying to create numbers that do not exist. That can lead only to the dashing of the expectations of those who work in the medical profession and the patients who would be treated by them.
The Government's greatest trick is to reannounce. When one makes one announcement, one might as well make it many times. Let me give the House an example. On 29 September 1998, the Government announced—it was a welcome announcement—£30 million to modernise 50 accident and emergency units. On 28 October, they announced that there would be £30 million extra for A and E and, on 17 November, that there would be £30 million extra to fund A and E. On 16 February in the following year, on 15 March, 15 April, 7 May and 28 May, they announced each time that an extra £30 million was being made available for accident and emergency units.
Anyone outside the House might believe that if one announces seven times that £30 million extra will be spent on A and E in the NHS, that means that one is spending more than £200 million. However, in fact, only £30 million will be provided. That is the elastic arithmetic of the Government and a total inversion of the truth.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 21 July, the Prime Minister said:
We are renovating every accident and emergency department in the country?—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1188.]
In reality, my constituents have found that the accident and emergency department serving them in south Shropshire is being scaled down.
Dr. Fox: If I may, just for once, be fair to the Prime Minister, I think that he said that every accident and emergency department that needs it will be upgraded. What beats me is where we can find the criteria by which "needs it" will be judged. Throughout Britain, many departments that I would regard as needing improvement do not seem to be eligible for the magical £30 million that the Government are bringing forward. It would be entirely justifiable if my hon. Friend were to table parliamentary questions to discover those criteria. I wish him good luck, because we have not been able to discover them.
Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Fox: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment because she has already tried to intervene twice.
1016
What we see in terms of waiting lists is probably the greatest deception of all. Again, in "On the Record" this week, the Secretary of State said that, as everyone knows, waiting lists had peaked but were coming down, yet last month his Department announced a 36,000 rise, and the waiting list for the waiting list has more than doubled since Labour took office. Only the Government, with their Alice in Wonderland interpretation of data, could regard such figures as going down.
Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks about spending plans and the information given to the public, but who should the public believe—the hon. Gentleman when he says that Government spending plans are insufficient, or the former shadow Chancellor who said that they were reckless?
Dr. Fox: The lap dogs are all out today. I should have expected that, by now, the Labour Whips would have done a little work and got some new interventions.
The amount of money that has been made available, although described as "generous", is nothing of the sort. In fact, the money announced by the Government is not the amount that has been given to health authorities. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government have perpetrated a con trick on the health authorities and the trusts, and on patients in Britain.
Miss Kirkbride: I share the accident and emergency department referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The Government talk about changes and improvements to such departments, but at Kidderminster general hospital and the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, those departments are being downgraded to minor injuries units, which is why money is being spent on them.
Dr. Fox: That is an example of something else that the Government do continually: regrade things and give them a different title so that we are supposed not to notice that we are being given an inferior level of service. They must think that the public are as gullible as their own Back Benchers if they think they will get away with that for any length of time.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Fox: No, I have just given way three times.
I come to clinical priorities. This is probably the most serious part of today's debate. The Government were warned at the outset by the Conservative party and, to be fair, the Liberal Democrat—the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)—and the medical profession, that its waiting list initiative was dangerous. Last week, Dr. Peter Skolar described it as complete anathema to the medical profession. Increasingly, that is how it is. It is dangerous because, with its obsession with numbers, it treats all patients as having equal clinical weighting, which is unfair. It is a manipulation of clinical priorities because, by penalising health authorities for not bringing numbers down quickly enough, health authorities are being encouraged, within any one given budget, to treat more minor conditions to satisfy the political masters, rather than treat them according to clinical priority. That is an unethical, unfair and immoral way in which to run a health care system.

1017
Dr. Peter Wilde confronted the Prime Minister last week on "Newsnight" and said that, as a cardiologist in Bristol, he believed that patients had died unnecessarily waiting for cardiac surgery. The scandal lies in the fact not simply that patients were waiting too long, but that the health authorities were still treating minor conditions while those patients were waiting for more serious surgery. That distortion of a simple clinical priority is the ethical flaw in the Government's policy.
There is still time for the Government to abandon that policy. I have no intention of raising individual cases of patients who have suffered, but surely we can all see that it cannot be right, in any medical system with finite funding, to ration on the basis of getting the numbers down quickly rather than treating the appropriate patients and ensuring that the sickest are treated first.
Surgeons throughout the country tell us that they are under pressure from their managers to get the numbers down quickly to avoid being penalised financially by the Government. We most object to the culture that is driving the process. There is a corrosive—and, I believe, disreputable and dishonest—code driving not only the policy but its presentation. That is partly because the Government have no coherent philosophy. The Secretary of State told managers when he was a junior Minister that he would come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dealt with the private sector, but the Prime Minister said on "Newsnight" that he had no ideological problem with the private sector.
There was no adequate consultation to avert the winter crisis. From April, employers who dare to give private sector cover to their employees as a benefit will be subject to a new tax. Hon. Members may want to know that yesterday the Fees Office said:
I am writing to confirm that there will be a National Insurance liability on Health Care payments …
All such payments should go through the payroll and will incur Employer's NI at a rate of 12.2 per cent.
Any Members of Parliament who dare to give their secretaries or researchers health perks will be taxed by a Government who do not have a problem with the private sector.
It goes to the root of the Government's culture that they say one thing and do another. They would say black was white if they thought they had to. They are so duplicitous that they would not ask for water if they were thirsty. What is more, they can never be wrong. The Secretary of State said last week that Professor Alberti—his own adviser—Stephen Thornton of the NHS Confederation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Rabbi Julia Neuberger of the King's Fund were all wrong. On "Newsnight", the Prime Minister said that the managers, the doctors and the public were wrong, and moreover that the media were to blame.
The Government have no core values and exist only to be in office. We have the sad spectacle of Back Benchers, rather than holding the Executive to account, worshipping at the altar of the Prime Minister's ego. If one statement said it all, it was when the Prime Minister was asked whether the distortion of clinical priorities by the waiting list initiative should be changed. He said:
If we abandoned waiting lists, you guys—
the press—
would come down on us first and then patients would come down on us.
1018
That means that Ministers' reputations come first and patient care comes second.
We have a health care system run by politicians for politicians, not by doctors for their patients. On health care, the public expected much from the Government, but have been bitterly disappointed. The Government have replaced ethics with spin, hope with cynicism and dedication with dismay. The great Labour lie has turned into the great Labour betrayal.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's modernisation programme for the NHS and the reduction in waiting lists and times that are being achieved through the dedication and hard work of NHS staff; notes the progress being made on recruiting more doctors and more nurses, building more hospitals, treating more patients and modernising more services; applauds the Government's decision to make tackling cancer, coronary heart disease and mental illness a priority; believes that financial provision for the NHS would be reduced as a consequence of the Conservatives' Tax Guarantee and that clinical need would be abandoned in favour of ability to pay under the Conservatives' health plans."
I apologise at the outset for the fact that I will not be here for the winding-up speeches, as I have a prior speaking engagement.
The Opposition have called for a debate on financial provision and clinical distortion in the NHS. I am pleased to tell the House that financial provision for the NHS has never been greater. The NHS is now benefiting from the largest cash injection it has ever seen. I am also pleased to tell the House that the assault on clinical distortion caused by the postcode lottery of care has never been greater either: the failed, disastrous, divisive internal market in the NHS has been consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Milburn: Yes. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was a supporter of the internal market.
Mr. Burns: If everything is so wonderful for funding in the national health service, why is it that, this financial year, the Mid Essex hospital trust will have the largest deficit it has had in its history, and three wards, containing 84 beds, will be closed?
Mr. Milburn: I do not know about that particular case, but the hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Department of Health in 1996–97 when the NHS ran up a combined deficit of £459 million. He shares at least some of the responsibility for that, as I am sure he accepts. By the beginning of this financial year, that deficit had come down to £18 million, so we will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman or the Conservative party on deficits in the NHS.
Mr. Edward Garnier: If the Secretary of State could not answer the previous question, perhaps he can answer mine. In November last year, his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), opened a brand new breast

1019
cancer unit at the Glenfield hospital in Leicester. That unit was opened thanks to private subscriptions and was not funded by NHS money. It will now be closed. Why?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about the Leicestershire area and he will be aware that consultation is still taking place about some of the proposals. There are always difficult decisions to make about health care funding and services, and that is as true for this Government as it was for the previous Government. The consultation continues and I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to take part in it.
The Conservatives' motion condemns financial mismanagement when the Conservatives are past masters of it. I remind the hon. Member for Woodspring (Mr. Fox), who was rattling on about financial mismanagement, that it was his Government who managed to spend a small fortune on financial mismanagement in the NHS, including more red tape and bureaucracy than it has had in its history. This Government are taking £1 billion out of red tape to put directly into front-line patient services. We are doing that because it is the patients' priority, the staff's priority and our priority. Needless to say, the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose it.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State referred a couple of moments ago to the ending of what he called the postcode lottery. Can he explain to me, so that I can explain to those of my constituents suffering from multiple sclerosis—some of whom are now in Westminster Hall—why one of my constituents from Hampshire is unable to obtain beta interferon and will have to wait 18 months, while another person from Surrey is able to obtain it immediately and tells me that it is down to the postcode lottery? Rather than going back to the past, will the Secretary of State recognise that people want to know what the Government whom they elected are going to do to improve their health care instead of making it worse?
Mr. Milburn: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what we will do about it. Every hon. Member is aware of the situation in relation to beta interferon, and the first thing to say is that nobody should hold out beta interferon or any such product as a cure for MS. It is not a cure, because there is no such cure. However, this Government recognise that there is a lottery of care—unlike the previous Government who denied it—and, what is more, we are taking action to tackle it. That is why the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering beta interferon. I want to see a fair system of care that does not depend on where someone lives, or who their GP happens to be. Care should be determined according to clinical need. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current guidance on beta interferon, which will be superseded once NICE has reported, is guidance that the Tory Government issued in 1995.
Mr. James Gray: My constituent Stephanie Millward will be keen to hear when NICE is to report. If the Secretary of State is happy about the treatment of MS, will he explain why the Government
1020
spend a laughable £640,000 a year on research into the causes of MS? That is a ridiculous sum, so will the Secretary of State commit himself to increasing it?
Mr. Milburn: There are always many demands on the NHS research and development budget—including for research into prostate cancer. We try to ensure that the R and D programme is best geared to meet patients' interests. We will, of course, look at the resources devoted to MS research. With regard to beta interferon, I can tell the House that we expect NICE to report in late summer or early autumn. We will try to make that report available to the national health service as quickly as possible, as we all have a shared interest in getting the matter right. I am afraid that, in the past, the problem has been swept under the carpet.
The Conservative motion also complains about
using the NHS as a means of providing publicity and photo opportunities …
The hon. Member for Woodspring has been caught short once already, so he ought to check his facts more carefully, especially with regard to photo opportunities. For some time, the BBC's "Panorama" programme has been contacting NHS hospitals up and down the land asking if filming could be conducted on their premises. At least 23 hospitals have been contacted, including Basildon hospital, Kettering general hospital, the Princess Royal hospital in Telford, the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and Kidderminster general hospital. One might think that there is nothing unusual in that, but the filming is not for a factual programme. It is for a fictional programme—the story of one man's experience as a television extra.
I have a copy of the fax from the BBC about the programme, dated 20 January this year. Given the concern expressed in the motion about photo opportunities and the misuse of the national health service, I am sure that the House will be interested to know the proposed star of the extravaganza. The fax states:
William Hague has agreed to be filmed in a variety of situations.
There is more to the story than that. According to the fax, the Leader of the Opposition is to
take on a role in the hospital for half a day; a porter's job or something similar.
I suppose that we should at least be grateful that he is not going to masquerade as a brain surgeon. So much for the Opposition's complaint about photo opportunities: the hon. Member for Woodspring should check his facts before he comes before the House.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Milburn: In a moment, as I have given way six times already.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State give way on this point?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman, who is a Whip, should sit down. I might give way to him later—if he learns to behave himself.
I shall deal with each of the claims in the Opposition motion, and I shall start with the question of financial provision for the national health service—a subject that we are more than happy to debate.

1021
Over the period of the comprehensive spending review—that is, this year, next year and the year after—the NHS is experiencing average real-terms growth of about 5 per cent. In the present financial year, real-terms growth is actually around 6 per cent. Health authorities are getting cash increases that average 6.8 per cent.
Let me put that in context. The average real-terms growth for the NHS over the full 18 years of the Conservative Government was around just 3 per cent—half the growth in this financial year. During the previous Conservative Government's final five years in office, they did not even manage 3 per cent. growth. They averaged growth of only 2.6 per cent. per year in that time.
It is little wonder, then, that the NHS that this Government inherited had too few doctors and too few nurses; that three quarters of accident and emergency units needed modernising; that the NHS was crying out for the biggest hospital building programme in its history; that waiting lists were too long and were rising; and that our country's record on coronary heart disease and cancer lagged so far behind that of other European nations.
It is also little wonder, after those 18 years of neglect and mismanagement, that we inherited an NHS that was on its knees. We intend to get it back on its feet, but of course that will take time. We will not be happy until it is up and running again as the pride of Britain and the envy of the world. Conservative Members want always to run down and talk down the national health service, but the Government are making progress towards "making political capital" out of the NHS, to borrow the graphic phrase used by the hon. Member for Woodspring.
There are 2,000 more doctors in the national health service than there were when we came to office. We are beginning to turn the corner, too, on nurse shortages. There are 4,500 more nurses in the NHS than there were a year ago, thanks in part to the largest real-terms increase in pay that nurses have had in a decade and a half. It was paid in full—without staging, as happened under the previous Government. The biggest hospital building programme that the NHS has ever seen is under way. Every casualty department that needs it is being modernised.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about difficult decisions. For the first time, we have a means of setting national standards, through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, to tackle precisely the lottery of care that the Conservative created and connived at. We have also, for the first time, a means of monitoring and inspecting those standards through the Commission for Health Improvement.
Miss Kirkbride: The Secretary of State has mentioned NICE a number of times, and its views on beta interferon. He will be aware that many people in Westminster Hall right now are very concerned about that. In Worcestershire, only two people out of hundreds with multiple sclerosis are receiving beta interferon. If NICE agrees that beta interferon is a cost-effective treatment, as the right hon. Gentleman's Government would put it, does he promise that everybody in Worcestershire who is able to benefit from receiving beta interferon will have it, and will he make up the shortfall in Worcestershire health authority's budget as a result?
Mr. Milburn: We have NICE for a very simple and straightforward reason. As both the hon. Lady and I know,
1022
different health authorities take different decisions about prescribing important drugs and making available different forms of treatment and intervention. We want to put that right, because we believe in a fair system of health care in which care is made available according to clinical need and not any other factor. When NICE produces its guidance, we expect health authorities, primary care groups, doctors, nurses and others to take full account of what it says.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Does that mean that, should NICE decide that beta interferon is not cost-effective and clinically effective, patients who currently receive it can anticipate ceasing to have it in the future?
Mr. Milburn: That is not the position. We have discussed this issue with NICE, which is under an explicit instruction to look at the ramifications of any decision that it takes—for example, if it decides that in future a drug that patients currently receive is not cost-effective or clinically effective. The important thing about NICE is that it does not substitute for doctors or for other clinicians' decisions. It is there to help and support them and make their job easier. Ultimately, the individual clinician dealing with the individual patient will have to decide. Frankly, I cannot decide that; neither can the hon. Gentleman—and neither, with the best will in the world, can the NHS Executive or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is a clinical decision, but it must be an informed clinical decision, based on what works and what does not, on what is effective and what is not.
Dr. Fox: It is a very important point that there is a distinction between cost-effectiveness and affordability. Although it might be a legitimate role of NICE or any similar body to examine the cost-effectiveness of any treatment—an aim which I am sure is widely shared—the decision on affordability should not be left at arm's length, but should rest with Ministers. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if NICE agreed that beta interferon was a cost-effective treatment—especially, as seems increasingly likely, in the early stages of multiple sclerosis—Ministers would not stand in the way by saying that it was not affordable to the NHS?
Mr. Milburn: There are clearly two separate sets of decisions to be made. One is about effectiveness. It is right and proper that NICE should look at clinical and cost-effectiveness side by side. That is the right thing for it to do; and it is best equipped to do it. The national health service has never had an independent means of considering those matters and it seems sensible to have one if, as Conservative Members claim—I am sure they are genuine in this—they want to deal with these problems.
There is a separate set of decisions which, in the end, I take. I take decisions about affordability. Those are my decisions. That is right and appropriate, and I will be held to account for them. When NICE comes up with its recommendations, we will of course consider what it says. That is the right thing to do.
I can tell the House that there has been no greater clinical distortion than allowing the NHS, as the previous Government did, to provide the lowest level of cardiac services in precisely the areas where coronary heart disease is highest. That is what we inherited, and that is

1023
what we are trying to change. We shall improve the health of the population as a whole, but we shall improve the health of the poorest fastest.
Yes, there are many things wrong in the health service, but there are many things that are going right. Slowly but surely the expansion of the NHS is under way. It is underpinned by the extra resources that we have committed to the service. Of course, it takes time to deliver results and they are always dependent on what we can afford, but we have achieved 5 per cent. funding increases on average during the current spending review. If we continue to manage the economy successfully, we can be confident that we will be able to make the sustained increases in funding that our health service needs, and get up to the European Union average.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has said that none of that is certain. One thing is certain—the Conservatives would not and could not match our commitment to the NHS. The first reason for that is that Conservative Front-Bench Members have already condemned Labour's investment levels as reckless and irresponsible and as madness. Secondly, the Conservatives' tax guarantee, far from delivering the growth in NHS capacity that the service needs, would result in
swingeing cuts in the health service.
Opposition Members shake their heads, but those are not my words; they are the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
Opposition Front-Bench Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot bemoan the improving financial position of the health service while proposing swingeing cuts. They cannot complain about NHS deficits while threatening to make them worse. What the Conservatives propose is not so much a tax guarantee as guaranteed attacks on the future of the NHS.
That is not what the NHS needs. It needs more investment and more reform. The only guarantee is that it will get neither from the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Woodspring says that, philosophically, the Conservatives have moved on from the NHS. The Government believe that the principles of the NHS are right, but we believe with equal passion that its practices have to change fundamentally.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to say that waiting lists are unethical is to say that minor ailments should always be trumped by major ailments, and that under Tory rule someone with a cataract would never have treatment? Does he agree also that to say that a 6.8 per cent. funding increase is not sufficient and yet not to pledge any more is to open up the hidden agenda of privatisation behind the tax guarantee?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am coming to precisely those points.
The Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot have the tax guarantee and then complain about lack of investment in the NHS. That will open them up to the charge of hypocrisy, and that charge will stick as we go into future general elections. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and her colleagues on the Back Benches, who complain that there is not enough
1024
money going into the NHS, ought to take up their complaint with the new shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition because their policy, the tax guarantee, places an artificial straitjacket around NHS spending.
Our view is straightforward: we want to invest more in the NHS. We know that more investment is needed in the NHS, and that is precisely what we intend to provide.
Dr. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Milburn: One more time, and then I want to get on to clinical distortion.
Dr. Fox: It surprises me that the Secretary of State wants to get on to that subject. On taxation, he makes the ridiculously simplistic argument that it is impossible to reduce the burden of taxation and increase expenditure on the health service. In the 1980s, the NHS saw its biggest funding expansion in history, at the same time as the tax burden diminished. If the right hon. Gentleman asserts that that is impossible, how does he reconcile his two statements today about increasing and improving NHS funding and the Government's reduction in the standard rate of tax by 1p next month?
Mr. Milburn: I presume, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. Is that right? Does he agree or disagree with what the former Prime Minister had to say about the tax guarantee?
As the Prime Minister has said many times, cutting income tax rates is the right thing to do—not least to compensate for other changes in the tax system. We can do that precisely because we are giving the NHS the biggest cash injection in its entire history. Let us not forget that the hon. Gentleman and his party opposed that at the time, and do so now, but do not have the guts to say so.
On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), clinical need drives our determination to speed up care. Faster care means better health. Let us be clear: the NHS is expected to treat all patients according to their clinical priority. Emergencies should be treated immediately, and urgent cases should rightly be given top priority. Our determination to get waiting lists down has not changed that one bit, and the figures prove it.
Compared with 1997–98—these are complex procedures; precisely the sort that the hon. Member for Woodspring says are not happening in the NHS because of all the toes and nails that are being done—last year, there were more than 6,400 additional hip replacement operations, more than 4,700 additional knee replacements and more than 1,400 additional coronary heart bypass grafts. Let us have no more of the argument that clinical priorities are distorted by waiting lists. Waiting lists are down, and we will go on to meet our manifesto commitment. What is more, we have turned the corner on out-patient waiting, too.
The hon. Member for Woodspring says that the lists are not coming down. Over Christmas and new year, hospitals rightly prepare to deal with the inevitable rise in attendance that extra winter pressures cause. This winter

1025
was no exception. We saw a rise in the number of people waiting for in-patient treatment in December. We will probably see a further rise in the January figures.
Imagine what a performance there would have been from the hon. Gentleman if those waiting lists had not risen this winter. He would have endlessly repeated the charge that waiting lists had distorted clinical priorities. Indeed, December must have been the only month of the year when he wanted waiting lists to go down. I am sorry to have disappointed him. The NHS did the right thing this winter. It put emergencies before elective cases. In the process, it has given the lie to those who claim that cutting waiting lists distorts clinical priorities. It has not, it does not and it will not in the future either.
Mr. John Bercow: In responding to my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), the Secretary of State wriggled like a belly dancer. For the benefit of the 1,000 multiple sclerosis sufferers and their supporters congregating this afternoon in Westminster Hall, will he tell the House in the form of a simple yes or no answer whether he stands by his statement that
No one will be denied the drugs they need. That is guaranteed … ?—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]
Yes, in all circumstances, or no?
Mr. Milburn: That is precisely what we want to do and that is precisely why we have established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which the hon. Gentleman opposed. I can therefore only presume that he and his hon. Friends are quite content, apart from specific instances of drugs and treatment, to let the lottery of care continue. I say one thing to him: we are not. Yes, we want to ensure that people receive the treatment that benefits them most. That is precisely what NICE will do.
What the NHS did not do was turn people away because they had the wrong sort of illness, or expect them to take out private medical insurance for a range of conditions deemed by politicians to be no longer necessary on the NHS. To do so would genuinely be to distort clinical priorities and put political priorities ahead of patient need. That is precisely what the hon. Member for Woodspring and the Conservative party propose to do.
Dr. Stoate: My right hon. Friend has told the House how many more hip and knee replacements were carried out on the NHS last year. Will he tell me what would have been the increased burden on an average family, especially a pensioner family, had those treatments been carried out in the private sector with private insurance?
Mr. Milburn: I was coming to precisely that point. I think that the average cost of a hip replacement on the NHS is about £5,000, and that of a cataract operation is about £2,000. Those are NHS costs, and the NHS is cheaper than the private sector.
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. To an overwhelming extent, cataract operations and hip and knee replacements are the operations of old age. Why, on 16 January, did the hon. Member for Woodspring tell The Sunday Times that private medical insurance companies should cover conditions such as
hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations
1026
leaving the NHS to do other things? It was not a slip of the tongue: later that month, on "Sky News", the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made it absolutely clear that, under Conservative plans, people would look to the NHS
when they had serious life-threatening conditions and would look to their private insurance to help them
with the rest.
There is no ambiguity and no weasel words—the message could not be clearer. Conservative policy is to reduce the NHS to a core service for life-threatening conditions, thereby leaving other conditions—such as hip and knee replacements and hernia and cataract operations—to the private sector. Surely, there can be no greater distortion of clinical priorities than the Conservatives writing off the 300,000 people—many of them pensioners—who rely on those operations every year. Pensioners are the people who most need health care and can least afford private health insurance. The Conservatives' policies amount to no more and no less than a new Tory tax on old age.
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman should read more than a few misquoted columns in The Sunday Times. Had he read this week's newspapers, he would know that I stated explicitly last week that, for many reasons, a core model NHS could not work in the United Kingdom. However, does he accept that if we do not have a core model, any rationing in the NHS has to be done by means of waiting times and proper prioritisation of cases? Does he also accept that if people were encouraged to take out greater private coverage, either individually or through their employer, it would reduce pressure on the NHS and produce an expansion of total health care, which would help to achieve the outcomes that everyone wants?
Mr. Milburn: The last time the hon. Gentleman and I had exchanges about The Sunday Times article, he said that he was going to write to the newspaper to demand a retraction.
Dr. Fox indicated dissent.Dr. Fox indicated dissent.
Mr. Milburn: Yes he did—it is in the Official Report. Has he written that letter or not? If he has not, I can only assume that the article was an accurate reflection of what he told The Sunday Times about Conservative party policy.
Dr. Fox: Ridiculous.
Mr. Milburn: If it is ridiculous, the hon. Gentleman should send The Sunday Times a letter demanding a retraction two months after the publication of the article in question. In fact, he knows that I am telling the truth—that is the Conservatives' policy.
If individuals want to take out private health insurance, that is a matter for them, but the idea that that could be a panacea for our health care system is fatuous. There is no army of unemployed oncologists—or, according to Sir George Alberti, unemployed cardiologists or cardiac surgeons—waiting for the private call to arms.
An expansion of the private sector must inevitably mean a contraction of the public sector. We have been down that route. We tried that model of care during the 1990s.

1027
The then Conservative Government spent £150 million a year subsidising old people to take out private medical insurance. It did not make a jot of difference to the numbers taking out private health insurance. The idea that that somehow acts as a safety valve for the national health service is simply wrong and fatuous.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Milburn: No, I am not giving way.
The contrast could not be clearer. Yes, the NHS needs modernising, which is what the Government are doing, but no, the NHS does not need privatising, which is what the Conservatives propose to do. Conservative health policy would indeed distort clinical priorities and mean financial under-provision for the NHS.
No one pretends that everything in the garden is rosy. It is not, but step by step we are making the NHS better. It takes time, but we are making real progress. The country and the service will recognise that. There are more doctors, treating more patients in the NHS; more nurses, training and working in the NHS; new hospitals beginning to be completed for the NHS; modern casualty units coming on-stream throughout the NHS; and fewer in-patients waiting and more out-patients being treated.
That is our record so far, but it is only the start. There is a lot more to do, but I say to the hon. Member for Woodspring and the Conservative party that we have only just begun and we intend to finish the job, because it is what patients and staff want. They want a national health service modernised and reformed, and that is what they will get with this Government.
4.42 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing an opportunity for another debate in the House about health care provision. I agreed with a number of the points that he made. As he explained, the arbitrary waiting list initiative and the targets that were set have in many instances distorted clinical priorities, despite the protestations to the contrary from the Government Front Bench.
Anyone who visits hospitals and speaks to representatives of the professional organisations in the NHS knows that every time hospital managers are called upon to make decisions and set priorities, they are not making the decisions or setting the targets that they would otherwise have done, because they have to meet the waiting list targets.
Mr. Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes much of priorities, but is he aware that the National Audit Office found that last year the NHS performed an extra half a million operations? Will he give a big clap to the NHS, irrespective of priorities, for the fact that the overall amount of treatment is escalating rapidly, and we are committed to keep it going up?
Mr. Harvey: I congratulate NHS staff on achieving the objective of performing more operations. It is entirely
1028
right that they should do so, and they deserve congratulation. However, there are still more people waiting longer for operations.
In its 1997 general election manifesto promise, the Labour party stated:
The Conservatives have cut Government spending … by the equivalent of more than £3 billion as spending on the bills of economic and social failure has risen. We are committed to reversing this trend of spending. Over the course of a five-year Parliament, as we cut the costs of economic and social failure we will raise the proportion of national income"
that is spent on health.
That was a sensible and laudable aim, but, despite the fact that extra money has gone into the health service—a matter to which I shall return—it was clear that demand would continue to rise over time. It always does. If the Government did not anticipate that the number of people needing those extra operations would rise, it was extremely shortsighted of them to frame the policy commitment in that way. The hon. Member for Woodspring was right to say that, from the outset, warnings were given about that. In the Liberal Democrat manifesto our policy commitment was measured on the length of time that people had to wait, not on the number of people on the waiting list.
The number of other people on the list is of relatively little interest to people who are in the unfortunate position of waiting for an operation. They want to know for how long they will have to wait. It would have been more sensible of the Government to set themselves targets on the length of time that people have to wait. People are having to wait longer.
I am slightly puzzled by the Opposition's political objectives in choosing the subject of this afternoon's debate. They have made some important, serious points, but none are new. The ground has been fairly well covered. If the hon. Member for Woodspring hoped to secure news coverage, he would have aroused more news interest if he had told us more about the Conservative policies that he was distilling, and especially the role that he envisages for the private sector. I suspect that more journalists would have been in the Gallery, waiting to hear that. We await more information with interest.
In the rush to get people off in-patient waiting lists, the number of people on out-patient lists has increased. It has more or less doubled since the election from 250,000 to more than 500,000. Although a small downturn occurred recently, the number of people on those lists has increased massively. That more than compensates for the Government's limited progress on the objectives that they set themselves of trying to reduce in-patient waiting lists.
The Secretary of State made a fair point in his speech when he said that we should not be too carried away by figures that appear over a couple of months, especially if they cover the mid-winter period, because authorities and trusts will set different short-term priorities to cope with winter pressures. He is right. However, the overall trend has been upwards for the number of people who wait for unacceptable lengths of time.
It is interesting to consider regional variations. In the south-west—my region—there has been an overall increase in NHS in-patient lists, never mind out-patient waiting lists, since the general election. In the last quarter of last year, 159,000 patients waited more than 26 weeks for an appointment with a consultant after a written

1029
referral by their general practitioner, compared with 149,000 in the previous quarter. Even before the Christmas problems and the winter worries, matters were deteriorating.
It should be no surprise that the winter pressures caused such havoc in the health services. Despite promises, and the analysis made in the Labour party manifesto commitment that I quoted, the vast, generous allocation of funding that the Secretary of State describes is not being made to the health service. In a Liberal Democrat Opposition Supply day debate, I said that the Government's methods of accounting are, to put it mildly, unusual.
Those methods have never been used previously, in other walks of life or in other countries. However, as a doctor put it to me, "If my child grows 3 inches in the first year, 3 inches in the second year and 3 inches in the third year, surely the child has grown 9 inches, but under the Government's accounting methods, the child has grown 18 inches." That is the truth about the £18 billion that has gone into the NHS.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Woodspring, who, assisted by interventions from his colleagues, went through some of the difficulties that the health service faces. He referred to those that the NHS Confederation had mentioned, and explained how they wiped out some of the money that appears to have been put into the health service. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that several important points needed to be made, not least on pay awards and the costs of coping with improved working rights and conditions, among others, that managers have to tackle. However, as he went through the list and as Conservative Members referred to the difficulties that those issues cause, I could not help but think back to the number of delegations of which I was a member during the previous Parliament that pressed Ministers for more funds on behalf of local education authorities, local councils and health authorities.
In those presentations, we invariably said to the Conservative Ministers facing us, "Look at the terrible pressures that the authority will face, not least funding pay rises." Unfortunately, I do not recall the provision of more cash ever being part of the response. I recall their saying, "These are simply the facts of life and local education authorities and the like are no different from businesses. Everybody has to face those additional costs." Although I very much agree with what the Conservatives have said today, on that particular aspect there seems to be a marked distinction between what they are saying in opposition and what I recall even the kindliest Conservative Minister saying in government when one petitioned for more cash.
The Secretary of State made the point that part of Government policy has been to set about a modernisation programme. In general terms that must be right and, indeed, in some specific terms it has headed in the right direction. We have detailed points of dispute with them over a number of changes, but their reforms of primary care, the introduction of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement, and the development of national service frameworks are all sensible policies that move in the right direction. However, the danger is that they will convince themselves that modernisation is in some sense an alternative to putting additional funding into the national health service. The reality is probably the reverse.
1030
If the modernisation policy works as well as I hope it will, it will result in an improving NHS that will probably cost even more to run. I remember the Conservative Government setting about the process of introducing care in the community. The only thing that was wrong with what otherwise seemed to be an entirely laudable policy objective was the belief that it would somehow cost less. Anybody could see that closing down those appalling old mental asylums and putting people into care in the community was entirely right, but it was a banking certainty to cost a lot more money. We have found precisely that in practice.
For the first two years of this Parliament, the Government decided to saddle themselves with the spending objectives left in place by the previous Conservative Administration. Only in the last three, under the comprehensive spending review, have they started to load significant sums into public services. The result will be that, by the end of this Parliament, they will struggle to convince the electorate that they have expanded health service funding by any more than their Conservative predecessors. Were the election to be called next spring, which seems to be a fashionable bet in some quarters, they would have had only a four-year Parliament of two lean and two slightly better funded years. They would not even have achieved a real-terms increase year on year as great as that managed by the previous Conservative Government.
Unless the Government take radical action pretty quickly, they will face the electorate in May next year having to explain why their increases in health service spending have not even kept up with those of the Conservatives. With the Budget only three weeks away and the comprehensive spending review to be published in July, I can only hope that they find extra money that goes some way to meeting the objective—which the Prime Minister seemed to come up with on the hoof a few weeks ago—of trying to achieve average European Union health spending within five years.
That commitment does not stand close scrutiny because the EU' s membership might change considerably over the next five years, the economic cycle could make average EU health spending a completely different proportion of gross domestic product in any or all EU countries and exchange rate fluctuations could completely distort the figures in any event. The United Kingdom, as one of the largest EU countries, will push the European average up as the situation here improves, so we would be chasing a target that got further and further away.
It would be helpful if the Government nailed down what the Prime Minister meant, what they are seeking to achieve and over what period. If they were seriously to achieve the objective of getting up to EU average spending within five years, it would begin to address the serious funding and resourcing problems in the health service. The measure of success will be whether they achieve the objective that has been set.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind the fact that this Opposition day debate was mounted by the Conservative party, does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise and concern that only two Back-Bench Tory MPs are present to discuss these issues?
Mr. Harvey: It seems surprising that, having chosen this subject for debate, there are not more Conservative

1031
Members wanting to participate in it. I am not sure how they will keep it going until 7 o'clock, but I suspect that some of them are frantically running round the Tea Room. I suspect that they are relying on me to keep it going. Other than that, we are looking forward to a long contribution from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I shall see what I can do to help her.
Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Harvey: I shall give way to help out in these circumstances.
Miss Kirkbride: In the interests of fairness, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that many of my hon. Friends who were present during the speeches of the Front-Bench spokesmen are now downstairs in Westminster Hall seeing off the multiple sclerosis sufferers who came to lobby Parliament. Labour Members were absent from that lobby.
Mr. Harvey: It is correct that a lobby on behalf of MS sufferers is taking place today, and I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will want to hear what they have to say and to play a part in that.
Funding for the coming year will be hard for many authorities and trusts, which carry the deficits that have accumulated in previous years. The Government, the public and the media are expecting more and more of the national health service. If authorities and trusts are to achieve what everyone wants them to achieve, they will have to have more money than they are getting at the moment. We shall have to wait and see what the comprehensive spending review comes up with, but we hope that the method by which calculations are made in that review and the sums that the Government are able to announce will be clearer and more transparent than they have been to date.
The Secretary of State referred to spending announcements. I looked into 63 spending announcements during 1999, which emerged in the form of Department of Health press releases. Umpteen were already covered by earlier announcements—fair enough, we have got used to that—but several were straightforward repeats. The distance and time that the Government allowed to elapse before reheating the old spending announcements varied from two months at the cheekiest to about eight months, when they hoped that enough people had forgotten about it.
We need to see real money, calculated in a universal fashion that everyone understands and that bears historical and international comparison. When the comprehensive spending review comes out, it is essential that the laudable goal of getting up to the EU average within five years that the Prime Minister has mapped out can be achieved.
Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of comments about funding, and I share his concern that we must ensure that the health service is properly funded. He claimed that the £18 billion that we promised for England does not add up, but were we to put in £6 billion in each of three years, he would have to agree with me that that would mean no growth in the second and third years.
1032
Time and again, the Liberal Democrats have asked for money for the health service—there is nothing wrong with that—but they have not explained how they would fund the NHS, and have not said how much money they would put in. I have heard nothing from the Liberal Democrats that makes me feel happy that they have a viable alternative to the vast sums of money that Labour is putting in and will to continue to make available in the future.
Mr. Harvey: I have a sneaking suspicion that the hon. Gentleman will never be entirely happy that the Liberal Democrats have a solution to the problems of the health service. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do our best to persuade him that that is so. We had a costed manifesto at the last election, which promised real-terms increases far in excess of what the Government have achieved, and we explained how those would be paid for.
Each time there has been a Budget we have produced an alternative Budget, and we shall do so again in a couple of weeks' time. After the July comprehensive spending review, both opposition parties will be able to take stock of the state of the nation's finances, and will begin the process of explaining to the nation before next spring's election what our spending priorities are and how we would pay for them. We will take those policies into an election next spring to try to convince the public that there is a better way of doing it. If the hon. Gentleman will hold his breath for a couple of weeks, he will be able to see our alternative Budget.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that last week we debated why the Government had decided on a tax cut this April, although all the polling evidence suggested that people did not want it. According to the polls, at least 80 per cent. said that they would prefer the money to be spent on public services. The Bank of England is raising interest rates almost every month because it is worried about a consumer boom, yet the Chancellor is considering putting the extra money into the pockets of consumers who do not even want it. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to claim that Liberal Democrats do not say how things should be paid for, just when we are saying that £2.6 billion could easily be found for the purpose.
The long and the short of it is that health service professionals, health authorities and trusts continue to struggle with adverse circumstances. Patients can see the state of hospitals: they can see that there is a lack of staff and that the staff who are there are so overworked that they are having to rush around like scalded cats, and they find it unacceptable that more people are still waiting for longer than they were at the time of the last election.
The Government have introduced some policy initiatives, which we applaud, but those initiatives are no substitute for adequate funding of the health service. The Prime Minister has now set an ambitious goal; we await the Budget and the July comprehensive spending review to see whether the Government are sincere and serious in their attempt to achieve it.
5.1 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I realise that not many Conservatives wish to speak—although their numbers have doubled in the past few moments: four Tory Back Benchers are now in the Chamber, which is encouraging—but several of my hon. Friends want to say a word, so I shall be brief.

1033
This morning I read a piece in the paper—I cannot remember which one—by some learned professor who argued that the ablest Conservatives were now leading a move back to the centre ground. I have observed no move in that direction on the part of Conservative Front Benchers today. There has been no departure from the clear commitment to a move towards a privatised system that we have heard consistently from successive Tory health spokesmen since the election. Significantly, however, the motion makes no mention of the Tories' privatisation solutions.
Mr. Burns: That is because we are not going to privatise.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have a degree of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who, like me, is a member of the Select Committee on Health. He works hard on the Committee, and understands some of the issues—not all, but some. However, I have read statements made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in The Sunday Times, which we discussed during our last debate. Those statements make clear the direction in which the Conservatives intend to go, and, although this is not in the motion, it has been made clear again from the Front Bench that they see the NHS as a core service to deal with serious conditions, and expect people to seek private treatment for conditions that are less serious.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: At 2.40 pm, the hon. Gentleman and I engaged in a debate on "Westminster Live", in which I plainly stated that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) had said explicitly that the Conservative party would not privatise the NHS. My statement could hardly have been made more recently; I hope that it was clear.
Mr. Jon Trickett: Playing with words.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Indeed it is. The Conservatives say that they will not privatise the NHS, but the hon. Lady's colleagues say that a number of patients will be encouraged to seek a private alternative to the NHS. That is on the record, and has been on the record consistently throughout all our debates in the current Parliament. It is the Conservatives' clear commitment. The point that I am making is that their motion makes no mention of any of their policies. In a sense, it treats the House with contempt to table a motion that simply comments on Government policy and sets out no alternative whatever. It has happened before. More than halfway, possibly, through the Parliament, the public deserve some explanation of what the Opposition stand for. The picture that we get is that they stand for moving away from the state health care system.
Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I want to make some progress.
As I have said, the debate on 18 January focused around the interview in the latest edition of The Sunday Times with the hon. Member for Woodspring and his detailed thinking on the future direction of health care under the Conservatives. I made a point of mentioning one specific part of the article. I did not quote his words
1034
out of context; I quoted them exactly within the context of the article. It quoted his views on the direction of Conservative policy:
The Conservatives are no longer concerned with the maintenance of the NHS as the primary provider.
There was a clear message there.
There was some mumbling from the Front-Bench team at that time. The Secretary of State said that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman intended to write to The Sunday Times. I have read it every week since. I have seen no corrections. I have seen no suggestions from the Conservatives in the letters column or elsewhere that it was a misrepresentation, because it is exactly what the hon. Member for Woodspring said. The key point that the Secretary of State made is that the tax guarantee will reduce public funding. Clearly, the expansion of private health care is allied to that.
The problem that the Tories face—they have never answered the question, although I have raised it in every health debate since the last general election—is that, if they expand private health care, where will the staff come from? They will come directly from the NHS, so it is their policy to expand the private sector—whether we call it privatisation or peripheral—with people being encouraged, as they have been today, to take out private insurance and use the private sector for hip replacements, cataract operations or whatever. The purpose is to expand and increase use of the private sector.
The Tories do not seem to understand that the private sector does not train its own staff. It recruits them directly from the NHS, so their policy is all about robbing the NHS of its staff and skills.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I want to carry on because many Members want to take part in the debate. I have taken one intervention. I hope that I responded to the point that was made.
The simple political fact is that the Tory party has given up on the NHS. I made the point during the speech of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey): two Tory Back Benchers were in the Chamber for a Tory debate. That shows their commitment to discussing concerns about the NHS. If they are getting hammered by their constituents about problems in the NHS, look at the Tory Benches: there is no one there. That shows that they are doing nothing but going through the motions. They see the private sector as the way forward. It is no surprise because, as we all know, the Conservative party has never believed in the NHS.
Mr. Burns: May I try to put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery? I know that he is keeping to a script that he obviously wrote some hours ago, but just to reassure him: Conservative Members do believe in the NHS, free at the point of delivery. That is why we are so concerned on behalf of our constituents about what is happening with waiting lists, out-patient lists, ward closures and the lack of funding.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am still mystified. If there is such concern, why do we constantly hear about the mixed economy? The first statement—I will check the record—

1035
of the hon. Member for Woodspring was about that. That gives a clear message: the Tories want not the state health care system, but the mixed economy.
Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No. With the greatest respect, I have to make progress.
That has been the consistent message for nearly three years. It has not changed, so people understand the direction of Tory policy and will make up their own minds, as they did at the last general election.
I should like to deal specifically with the subject of this debate, as described on the Annunciator: the Government's waiting list pledge at the previous general election, and the alleged distortion of clinical priorities. I have long examined the issue, and I know that there are 101 ways of measuring activity and progress—or the lack of it—in the national health service. As I have said many times, I should not have chosen waiting lists as the best way of measuring progress made in the health service, but should have thought that progress in public health is the best overall guide in judging Government policy. Nevertheless, I accept that I was elected on that pledge, and I believe that I have a duty to ensure that the Government deliver it.
I recommend to hon. Members an exercise that I performed the other day—read the manifesto on which we stood at the general election. I re-read the manifesto that I issued at the election, and it included the pledge on waiting lists. It seems—looking at my picture on the manifesto cover—that I look younger now, under Labour, than I did then, but that is a separate issue. The point is that, with the exception of that one pledge, on waiting lists, we have delivered all of our promises, and I am damned proud of that. I also have a vested interest in ensuring that I can tick the last promise, on waiting lists. Although I had reservations about including the pledge, I believe that we have to deliver it, and that we will deliver it.
Is the pledge distorting priorities in the NHS? A couple of weeks ago, the Health Committee conducted a brief inquiry into the winter pressures initiative. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) attended the inquiry, so I hope that he will concur on this.
At the inquiry, I asked a question of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), which I couched in these terms: "If I were the chief executive of an NHS trust and I faced the dilemma of choosing between meeting the Government's waiting list target or treating people on the basis of clinical need, what should I do?" She was absolutely clear and categoric in her reply: "You treat people on the basis of need. The health service should treat urgent clinical needs first." The Secretary of State made precisely the same point today.
If hon. Members say that that is not happening in various parts of the country, I shall need to see the evidence of it. Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that urgent clinical priorities are not being treated first, I have not seen concrete evidence of it. I listen to people and, every day, I receive many letters from people who work across the NHS, but I have not yet received a
1036
concrete example of the practice. If I receive such an example, I shall examine it. I shall also say that the people in the health service who are involved in the practice have not been listening to the Government's statements, which have made it quite clear that urgent clinical needs should be treated first.
At that Health Committee inquiry, we also compared the performance of two acute NHS trusts, one of which was in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, in Essex, with the other in the north-west of England, in Cheshire. Allegedly, one of the trusts was failing, and the other was succeeding. What I learned in the inquiry—perhaps the hon. Member for West Chelmsford took from it a different message—is that, when we examined in depth the two trusts' figures, we were not comparing like with like. I also learned that one of the trusts was intervening earlier than the other trust in certain medical conditions, and that that practice was increasing its out-patient waiting list.
One trust gave the Committee the specific example of cataract operations. That trust tackled cataract cases earlier than it had before, on an out-patient basis, and did not leave them for the condition to worsen. However, the change in procedure increased the number of people on the out-patient waiting list. The size of waiting lists is, therefore, not the most reliable way of measuring local performance.
I hope that, at the next general election, we might consider including in our manifesto pledges on measurements other than waiting lists. Although I have no problem with including waiting lists, we should do so within the wider context of measuring progress, or lack of it, on other health issues, not only in the health service, but in public health.
As other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I shall make only one or two brief points on issues that the Government still have to address. I believe that the biggest distortion in clinical priorities has been caused by private medicine. Part-time NHS consultant status leads to a scandalous distortion, often placing treatment of those who are able to pay before treatment of those on NHS waiting lists who are in greater need. The same consultants are treating people in both sectors.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Government will consider conducting a sample audit of NHS and private operating lists of part-time NHS consultants and comparing the clinical needs of patients in each sector. I know for a fact that the outcome of such an audit will show that the clinical needs of those who are on NHS waiting lists are far greater than those of people being treated in the private sector.
The message that I want to give the Government is that the waiting lists problems that we are facing will be dealt with seriously only when moonlighting in the private sector is ended once and for all. We have faced that problem ever since the inception of the national health service, and it is about time the Government dealt with it seriously, on behalf of those—the vast majority of people—who use the national health service.
We could fund that solution by using within the NHS the money that is currently being spent by the NHS on buying care in the private sector. A lot of money is being spent on buying private sector care that could be devoted to the NHS. I hope that Ministers will consider doing that,

1037
because such a change would fundamentally alter the treatment received by NHS patients waiting on NHS waiting lists.
I also hope that we shall make much better use of the scarce resources that we do have. When one has been an hon. Member as long as I have, one will—as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford is well aware—have heard it all before. We simply move to the Benches on the other side of the House and carry on dealing with the same matters as we dealt with before. The current Government are bolstering the health service with ever more money, just as the previous Government did. I am always mystified as to where all the money the Tories provided went. In my backyard, all I could see was things getting worse by the week. The money seemed to disappear into a black hole somewhere. There still seems, to some extent, to be a black hole.
We have talked about ending the internal market, which I fully accept. I have also commended the Government on ending competition, which is now officially gone, as the Health Act 1999 made absolutely clear. As an analogy, however, when I go to a market, I see various stalls selling similar products. In health provision, we still have a whole load of stalls that are selling very similar products. I should like some of those stalls to be combined.
I should also like us again to address the purchaser-provider split. I remain to be convinced, when I see what has happened in my own backyard, that such a split makes sense. I talk to people who know far more than I do about local operation of the NHS, and they think that there is huge duplication and a lot of money—which should be spent on patient care—being wasted. I hope that we will revisit that issue. I also urge Ministers to re-examine the framework, to make it more sensible and to cut more of the bureaucracy and waste still in the system.
It would not be a speech by me if I did not also argue that there has to be a much closer relationship between the NHS and local authority social services. I commend the Government on the way in which they have moved the two spheres much closer together. However, like many hon. Members, I fundamentally believe that there should be formal integration of the services. It does not make sense to keep the two systems separated.
I was struck by figures provided, a couple of weeks ago, in the conclusion to the national bed inquiry, showing that two thirds of NHS beds are occupied by over-65s. Since the mid-1990s, one half of the increase in emergency admissions has been of people over 75. Since the early 1990s, one half of the extra emergency admissions of over-75s have been for frailty, not medical need. The inquiry report, which was very comprehensive, provides concrete evidence showing that a substantial proportion of NHS admissions arise as a direct result of the failure to offer people alternative care in the community. In a previous health debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) gave an example of how he was able to provide such alternative care. We have to provide it, and combining the NHS with local authority social services would make it much easier to do so.
I am very proud of my Government's achievements on the NHS. I am proud that they are addressing the issue of quality, and that they are re-establishing public health as a key public policy issue. I am proud that, so far, they have managed to increase NHS funding, although I look forward to more funding. However, as I said, improving
1038
the NHS is not only about money, but about organisation. I am proud also that the Government have ended competition and restored to the NHS the philosophy of collectivism.
The hon. Member for Woodspring said that the Government have no core values. For goodness' sake, we represent the values of the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom. We believe in the values of the NHS that have stood this country in good stead since the 1940s. The NHS has an excellent future in the hands of the Labour Government.
5.20 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Like the Minister, I listened with great care—the Minister was probably a little aghast—to the hon. Gentleman's comments on what should happen to consultants. I hope that the Minister will fully answer the important points that the Chairman of the Select Committee made. Conservative Members will be fascinated to hear how much the Minister agrees with the hon. Gentleman.
It was also a pleasure in some ways to listen to the characteristically robust, but somewhat worn speech of the Secretary of State. In places, his speech was extremely interesting and non-partisan, and there were even points in it with which no fair-minded person could disagree. The trouble was that he, like many other Ministers in this Government, got hooked on the Millbank syndrome and had to repeat the same catch-phrases, buzz words and on-line messages that the Government try to get across to the country, regardless of whether they are based on fact. Sadly, the hon. Member for Wakefield could not resist clutching at the Secretary of State's coat tails. I refer in particular to the bogus argument about privatisation.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we were in government for 18 years. We did not, in any shape or form, in those 18 years seek to privatise the health service. In every year that we were in office, we increased the real-terms funding to the health service. Just to try to convince the hon. Gentleman, may I point out that I certainly believe passionately in the national health service? Under no circumstances would I tolerate its privatisation, in any shape or form.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I accept that the hon. Gentleman personally believes in the NHS. However, he supported and was a member of a Government who had a key fiscal policy of encouraging people to use the private health sector. His Government gave people tax breaks to do that. That does not suggest to me that they believed in the NHS. They wanted to get people out of the NHS and into the private sector, with a consequential drain on staff in the NHS.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman says that we encouraged people to use private health care. That may well be true in certain areas, such as tax relief on insurance premiums for the elderly, but it is not privatisation.
If one makes it attractive, through tax breaks for individuals, totally voluntarily to spend the money that they earn as they wish on private health care, that relieves the pressures on the national health service and must be beneficial to the people on waiting lists. I see no conflict

1039
between the principle of a free national health service and some members of the public wishing to spend their own money to make their own provision. There is nothing wrong with that and it is not privatisation.
I do not want to speak at great length on this subject, but shall make one final point about it. The Government are not averse to using the private health care sector to treat patients, albeit, rightly, free at the point of delivery to those patients. One of the Government's cherished promises—which was that no one would wait more than 18 months for hospital treatment—was broken in my constituency at the end of November and the beginning of December last year. Fourteen people had waited more than 18 months for treatment and the trust picked up on that problem. It was so terrified that it had embarrassed the Secretary of State and that the Government's cherished promise had been broken that it wrote to all those people to say that they could have their operations as quickly as possible whenever they liked, and the private sector carried out the operations. I am delighted for my constituents, because they quickly received their treatment, having waited longer than the Government said they would have to wait. That shows that the Government are not averse to using the private sector when there are problems.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I do not want to pursue this point, but I want to try to get one thing on the record. The hon. Gentleman is probably a good deal brighter than the average Conservative Front Bencher, so perhaps he can answer a fundamental question that none of his Front-Bench colleagues appear able to answer. When one pushes people into the private sector and expands it, where do the staff come from to service the private sector? They come directly from the NHS; that is the central point.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman's question suggested that people are forced into the private sector. No one forces people to take out private health insurance or to use private health care. As he has alluded to, there were in the past encouragements through the tax system for the elderly, but no one forced them to use the private sector.
There are two ways in which staff can be trained for health care in this country. The first—it trains the largest proportion—is through the health service and the second is through the private system, which trains a much smaller proportion.
Dr. Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, I will not give way, because I want to finish my point.
The hon. Member for Wakefield raised the issue of consultants and seems to be obsessed by it. I think that I can anticipate the Minister's answer to his suggestion. He will say no, but the hon. Gentleman probably thought it was worth a try to raise the issue. It will reassure the profession and bring relief to the Government when the Minister says that he does not agree with him. Significantly, he did not mention general practitioners, who are all self-employed. It was interesting that he
1040
mentioned consultants, but did not, for some reason, refer to GPs. I assume that that was an omission and that he would like to include them in his system.
Mr. Hinchliffe: No.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman says no. That suggests that he has a contradictory view. However, I want to move on, or we shall get bogged down in what is a minor part of my speech.
I read the Government's motion with interest and I listened to the glowing picture that the Secretary of State painted of NHS funding. He suggested that everything was absolutely magnificent in the health service. I agree that some things are magnificent. The staff—the doctors, nurses, consultants and ancillary staff who deliver health care to all our constituents—are excellent. I also concede that the additional money that the Government, like the previous Government, have given to the NHS is welcome. As the country's financial position dictates, and when the economy is healthy and more money pours into the Treasury from tax receipts and other sources, I would like more investment in the health service. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's war chest for the general election is not squandered buying up different target groups of the electorate for polling day some time, presumably, next year. I hope that more money is given to the health service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that the £21 billion over three years for the whole of the United Kingdom is not as spectacular as the headline figure suggests. He said that, once it is broken down and analysed, and if one takes into account the partial funding of pay awards and medical insurance, in effect, it works out at £5 billion. When the country can afford it—we are perhaps at a unique point in my lifetime because the country can afford it—I hope that substantially more money will be put into the health service. I say that because of what has happened in my constituency, which is causing grave concern to my constituents. Sadly, they have not enjoyed health care that is as good and glowing as the Secretary of State suggested was the case throughout the land.
I shall be fair and say from the outset that, under the Labour Government of the 1970s and my Government from 1979 until the early 1990s, health service spending was allocated under the resource allocation working party system down to the health authority, and what is now the health trust. RAWP was a crude and painful exercise for my constituents because we were part of the North-East Thames regional health authority, which lumped together places such as mid-Essex with Hackney, Tower Hamlets and other east London boroughs, which, to be frank, have worse social problems than mid-Essex. As a result, a disproportionate amount of health care funding, which, on a pound per head of the population basis would have gone to mid-Essex where the population was expanding, went to the east end of London. At the end of RAWP in 1990–91, it was calculated that mid-Essex alone had lost out to the tune of £15 million a year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) abolished RAWP and, in crude terms, introduced a pound per head system. From 1990–91 until 1997–98, mid-Essex did much better on a pro rata basis and started to recoup some of the

1041
£15 million lost as a result of RAWP. Unfortunately, one of the first things that the Secretary of State did as Minister of State when the Labour Government took office in 1997 was to tweak the funding formula. To be fair, it was only a small tweak, but it meant that more money went back into the east end of London and mid-Essex is losing about £1 million a year that it would have had under the system that existed in 1997–98. I regret that.
As I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, at the end of this month the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust will have the worst deficit that it has ever had—£4.2 million. Last summer, when the trust believed that the deficit would be £1.8 million by the end of this year, it closed three wards. Owing to the community health council's representations that autumn, it agreed to keep one ward open and, subsequently, due to the winter pressures, it was forced to use part of a second ward, but that was guaranteed only until March. Since then, the deficit has exploded from £1.8 million to £4.2 million. Even the closure of all three wards will not meet the trust's deficit, because that was expected to save only £900,000. One wonders how on earth that deficit would be removed in a recovery plan without even more adverse effects on health care, unless the Government were to provide more money.
The Government's amendment says that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends should welcome the Government's
reduction in waiting lists and times that are being achieved through the dedication and hard work of NHS staff.
I wholeheartedly concur with the second half of that sentence, but the first half causes me problems. Once again, it is Government spin, which bears little relation to reality.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, the waiting list to get on to the waiting list has increased during the past two and a half years from 250,000 to just over 500,000. The Government have pledged to reduce in-patient waiting lists by 100,000 in the lifetime of this Parliament. We may have only 12 or 14 months to go, so they have an uphill battle. In the Government's first year, waiting lists escalated almost out of control. They then started to come down—to be fair, they came down to 50,000—then they rose again. The Government will say, with some credibility and accuracy, that that was due to winter pressures, but it remains to be seen in the coming months how much of that rise was due to winter pressures and how much to financial pressures and demand on patient care.
Sadly, we in mid-Essex have not shared in that so-called improvement. If only we had, my constituents would not write to me so often about their problems. In mid-Essex in March 1997, 8,361 people were waiting for hospital treatment. In December 1999, the latest available figure, it was 9,851. In March 1997, 104 people, and falling, were waiting 12 months or more for treatment. In December 1999, the figure was 1,060, and rising. We have the added indignity that, at the end of November, early December, the Government's most cherished promise that no one would wait more than 18 months for treatment was also breached, yet we had no apology.
On out-patient lists, the Government thought that they had come up with a wonderful little wheeze. Some bright spark, realising the problems faced by the previous
1042
Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), because the figures were not falling and he had rashly said on the "Today" programme one morning that if they did not come down he would resign, decided to save the right hon. Gentleman's bacon—that was before the Prime Minister decided to save it for him by making him the Labour candidate for the mayor of London—by stringing out the length of time before anyone ever sees a consultant after having seen the GP, so creating a significant waiting list to get on to the waiting list for treatment. Nationally, that has been a disaster. The figure has risen from 250,000 to more than 500,000.
In my constituency, matters are even worse. In March 1997, a total of 555 people were waiting 13 weeks or more to see a consultant. Now, the figure is 3,699, which is unacceptable. That is why we need more money.
I come now to the distortion of clinical needs. The Secretary of State said that that does not exist and the hon. Member for Wakefield confirmed that. But, as Mandy Rice-Davies once said, they would say that wouldn't they? It is in their interests to try to spin that line. Unfortunately, to use a stockbroker term, what we are seeing is churning. If an operation is relatively minor, cheap and quick to do, it will be done more quickly than a non-emergency operation that is more complicated, expensive and time consuming, because of the pressures being placed on hospitals and trusts to deliver the Government's deadlines and targets.
As a general election approaches, the pressures will build even more, because the Government will have to show, by hook or by crook, that they have honoured their pledge on waiting lists. They may do it with mirrors or spin, but, whatever the real situation, they will claim to have achieved it because it would be too politically embarrassing for them to admit otherwise. People in the real world, waiting for treatment, will know what the Government are up to.
There is the further problem of trolley waits. Unison did a survey of my local hospital, Broomfield hospital, from 31 October to 5 December 1999. That end date is slightly before the problems of the winter pressures kicked in, so that cannot be used as an excuse. In that period, the number of people having to wait on a trolley from four to 12 hours for a hospital bed was 120. Even worse, the number waiting from 12 to 24 hours was 47. It is unacceptable to have people waiting around in A and E departments or elsewhere to get onto a ward.
Chelmsford has a problem that is shared throughout the country: the cancellation for non-clinical reasons of non-emergency treatment. A survey conducted at Broomfield between October and 22 December 1999—again, just before the winter pressures began to have a significant impact—showed that the number of people whose operations had been cancelled a month before admission was 118, but the number whose operations had been cancelled on the day of admission was 201.
Imagine being psychologically prepared for an operation, with the mental anguish and worry, and turning up at the hospital only to be told that, for non-clinical reasons, the operation has been cancelled. That is unacceptable. Everyone accepts that, if there is a major road accident or a disaster, operations will have to be cancelled to give precedence to emergency treatment, but for those 201 people, that was not the case. That is terrible.

1043
The half-baked solution, which will not work, was to announce the closure of three wards in my constituency, with the loss of 84 beds. To be fair, part of the solution was to eliminate the problem of delayed discharge, and I welcome that, but the wards should not have been closed: they should have been used to bring down the waiting lists. I see the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) nodding in agreement. I wonder whether he knows that, six months after the introduction of the policy of working with social services to eliminate the problem of delayed discharge patients in hospitals, the number of people in Broomfield as delayed discharges is 89.
Mr. Trickett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to filibuster the debate when many Back Benchers want to take part in this very important discussion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Burns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a sign of the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment that he has to call my speech a filibuster. He does not like to have to listen to what is going on in the real world, as it does not dovetail with the spin from Millbank. He should learn, because I cannot believe that his constituents do not write to him complaining about delays in their local hospital.
Everything is not as rosy in the NHS as the Secretary of State would have us believe. I am the first to wish him well, because we all want the most effective and efficient provision of health care for our constituents within the health service, for those who choose to use it. I only wish that, instead of trying to convey a situation that does not exist, the Government would be a little more honest and consider some of the tough decisions that will have to be taken to ensure that the health service continues to develop and improve, providing the health care that we all want for our constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So far, there has been no speech shorter than 18 minutes in this debate. I appeal to hon. Members to realise that shorter speeches make more friends.
5.46 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have told my Whip that if I take more than 10 minutes he must pull me down.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that his party was in power for 18 years and did not privatise the national health service. The reality is that it did. Anyone who knows how difficult it is for a constituent to get on an NHS dentist's list will realise that the Tories deliberately and cynically pushed dentistry out of the national health service. The vast majority of people who need dental treatment now have to pay for it. I needed dental treatment and refused to go private, but I
1044
had to wait three months for an appointment. That is what the Tories did: they privatised the NHS and they would do even worse next time.
Miss Kirkbride: Dream on.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) encouraged his colleagues to make political capital out of the problems. The Conservatives are too stupid to realise that they cannot make political capital out of the NHS, because the public will not forgive them for the state that they left it in: there is nothing in it for them. They are a bit like a—[Interruption.] They are a bit—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried by silent entreaty to silence the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). I must now tell her that I have had enough of her sedentary comments. They are delaying the debate.
Mr. Martlew: The Conservatives are a bit like a punch-drunk boxer: they do not know why they have come here—and most of them have disappeared. Politically, on the health service, they are brain-damaged.
The benefits of the £21 billion—the increase in nurses' pay, the increase in the number of nurses, and the increase in the number of doctors—are starting to show through. That may be even more the case in my constituency than elsewhere. In a way, that has been easy, because although I would not say that the NHS in my constituency was decimated, it was certainly starved of investment in the 18 years of Conservative Government.
Since we have had a Labour Government, we have closed the Victorian mental asylum and opened the brand-new Carleton clinic, which has provided an excellent service since opening last year. At the beginning of April, we will have a brand-new district general hospital—which we have waited more than 20 years for—under a contract that was signed after the Labour Government took over. Five attempts to build a new hospital were aborted under the Conservatives.
It may take seven years to train a doctor and three years to train a nurse, but under the Labour Government we have got a brand-new hospital in less than three years. It will be an excellent hospital, providing services—especially maternity services—that used to be on a split site. We have heard about various factors—lack of cardiac surgeons, for instance—that have led to the loss of lives. The fact that the paediatricians were on one site and the maternity unit on another cost babies' lives year after year—under the previous Labour Government, too, it must be said. The new hospital is coming and people are certain to see an improvement. That is why people will say that the Labour Government are doing their best. The NHS is like a supertanker, and turning it round has not been easy, but we are now seeing the effect of a good health service in Carlisle and the rest of the country.
NHS Direct will also come on stream locally in the autumn and provide an extra facility for my constituents. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) can pull faces about that, but the people who ring NHS Direct when they have a problem will be pleased by it.
There is no doubt that things are improving, but I cannot let the Secretary of State off completely. We still face challenges in North Cumbria. We have two district

1045
general hospitals, one in Whitehaven and one in Carlisle, which are separated by 40 miles of very bad roads. The population of the area dictates that we should have only one hospital, but that is not feasible, sensible or practical. However, the funding formula used takes no account of the fact that we need two district general hospitals. We need to keep the facilities of a district general hospital on both sites.
The two existing trusts will be merged in the near future, and we will have one acute trust and two district general hospitals. However, services will not improve as they should unless the Secretary of State is prepared to accept that there are rural areas whose needs the Conservatives did not address in the past and this Government need to address in future. We need to take account of the fact that North Cumbria is a massive area that includes the lake district, not an urban area in which everyone lives near the hospital.
The situation is improving, but we face many challenges. We need more nurses in our area. A recent scare put out by Unison claimed that a move to a single site would cost 180 jobs. That created much distress among the nursing staff and for my constituents. They thought, "Here we have a Labour Government who said that they were going to improve the NHS, but they are going to sack 180 nurses." The story was a fabrication, and in reality those 180 jobs are safe—and we will take on extra nurses in the future.
The people of Britain have a choice. Do they want partial privatisation of the NHS by the Conservatives—I suspect that even their focus groups are telling them that people do not want to pay for private insurance—or do they want the Prime Minister's pledge that if the economy is going right—and it would be stupid to commit to spending the extra money if there is a slump—spending will be brought up to the European average?
People who work in the NHS in my constituency are looking forward to that extra spending. For too long under the Conservatives, NHS staff did not know where the money was coming from. They have heard the platitudes—we heard them today from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—about how magnificent they are.
Mr. Burns: They are.
Mr. Martlew: In that case, it is a pity that the Conservatives did not pay them properly.
Under the Labour Government, the nurses will get the best increase that they have had for 10 years. It is easy to say that the staff are magnificent, but the Conservatives never provided the resources to match their magnificence. A Labour Government created the NHS and we are committed to it. We will modernise it and we will give the people of this country the health service that they deserve.
5.54 pm
Mr. John Hayes: Above all else, this debate is about expectations—the expectations by the people of Britain of a decent and healthy life, and a good quality of life, and the expectation that Governments will do what they say they will do.
Unlike many of those who have spoken, I wish to start with the common ground between hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, which is that those expectations—
1046
the public perceptions of what they can expect out of life in terms of health—have changed and are changing. I do not want to become too philosophical in a debate on health—indeed, in any debate, that might be a disadvantage—but it may be true to say that as people have become less sure about their journey to the next life, they have become more interested in preserving this one for as long as possible. Certainly, the nature of people's expectations of their time on this planet is affected by whether they think they can look forward to going anywhere else.
It is also true that as ageing has changed—not just in terms of how long people live, but in terms of what they expect to do when they are older—that has altered people's expectations of health. It is said that in my grandparents' time people were regarded as old at the age of 50. Now my 83-year-old father looks forward to travelling across Europe at regular intervals—at considerably more regular intervals than I do—and expects to be able to do so in good heart and health.
All that is common ground because those problems would confront any Government of any political persuasion. My disagreement with Labour Members is that they do not seem to appreciate that Conservatives recognise that common ground and have, in their hearts, the same desire to see good health for all the people—not only for personal and familiar reasons, but because we care about the welfare and well-being of all our constituents. It is nonsense to pretend otherwise, and facile to have a debate about who does not care about public health standards. All hon. Members care about health—
Mr. Martlew indicated dissent.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the reason why I care about health is that before we had an NHS, my grandparents and great-grandparents had to buy their false teeth, let alone their spectacles, second-hand from Woolworths. When my father was a boy going to school in London, there were children there with no shoes on their feet and with rickets. Conservative Members do care about decent public health for all, including working-class people, because many of us come from such backgrounds.
The difference between the parties is that we understand that if we are to address the changing expectations, we must do so with a coherent strategy, and that is incompatible with short-term political stunts and spin. That is what the Government's waiting list priority smacks of, not a long-term strategic view of requirements.
The second type of expectation is the expectation that a Government will do what they say they will do. I mean specifically the mismanagement of expectations—the cynical business of making the electorate believe before the general election that the problems could be easily solved. I refer hon. Members to the Labour party manifesto, which makes no judgment about the difficulties and gives no preamble about how hard the problems will be to solve. It says, in clear and specific terms, that the new Labour Government
will do better … We will restore the NHS as a public service.
It pledges to spread best practice and ensure rising standards of care. Those are not guarded or considered words, but bold claims which—if they are not realised—will lead to disappointment and, ultimately, to despair.

1047
Labour suggested to the electorate, many of whom were fooled into supporting that party at the general election, that the problems would be solved in a straightforward, fast and simple way. If one sows seeds of hope of that kind, one harvests despair. When the Government consider their record on health over five years—perhaps four—there will be no point in their saying to people, "We couldn't do what we hoped to do or what we said we were going to do. We couldn't deliver on the pledges that the electorate accepted as straightforward and honest. We need more time." No Government can say that unless they are straightforward and honest when they make the initial claims and promises.
If the Labour party election manifesto had talked about strategic difficulties, long-term plans and matters that would not be dealt with in the lifetime of a Parliament by straightforward means, we might have some sympathy. It is possible that we would be less critical than we are obliged to be today, in the interests of our constituents and of our country.
I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will respond to five specific points that I shall make very briefly. First, will he ensure that new NHS treatments are not introduced at the cost of cuts in the existing health service? For example, a new drug that treats a particular condition should be introduced without a parallel decline in a traditional service such as nursing. The resonance of the old truth that people are nursed back to health should not be lost in the push for ever more sophisticated solutions.
Secondly, we must look again at the variety of health needs that are not currently identified as separate and distinct problems. I have a particular interest in acquired brain injury—head injury. The problem with acquired brain injury is not that people are not treated well and properly when the accident that causes the injury—it usually is an accident and one that requires intensive care and emergency treatment—nor that their neurological problems are not dealt with. The problem is that the patient's subsequent needs and treatment are not considered to be worthy of separate attention.
Injuries to the brain and head are not identified as a discrete and separate subject, with the result that many of a patient's subsequent needs are left to haphazard, piecemeal provision. That provision depends on the particular policy of the health authority, hospital or professionals involved.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will ensure that, when NICE studies treatments with a view to recommending a policy on them, the people already receiving those treatments will not be disadvantaged. No better example of that problem exists than the case of beta interferon. A number of people receive that drug already, and we know that there is an inequality about the way in which it is provided. However, we do not want those already receiving the drug to be disadvantaged by a new policy.
Fourthly, I am sure that aftercare services, such as convalescence services, will increasingly be moved into the community. When that happens, the Government must ensure that resources follow the patient. It is often more expensive to look after a person at home than it is in hospital, where economies of scale can be made. The small hospitals in many of our smaller towns and
1048
rural communities are disappearing, in accordance with the strategy of moving aftercare services into the community.
I do not necessarily disagree with that strategy, but I worry that the resources will not follow the patient, with the result that the funds devoted to such care will decrease over time, and that the quality of care will diminish accordingly. We need good liaison between social services and other agencies involved in that care and health authorities. If necessary, the structure for that communication and liaison must be formalised.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the impact of sparsity on the delivery of rural health services. We must take on board the complaints of people who live in remote communities, such as my constituency. The Minister will understand that there is a difference between a sparse population and a scattered one. The degree of sparsity and scatter affects the ability of emergency services to respond to need, but it also impacts on less "glamorous" difficulties, such as those faced by people visiting relatives in hospital. For example, if an elderly spouse is taken into hospital, the healthy partner may have to make a round trip of 50 miles to visit. That problem may not be glamorous, but it is important to those whom it affects.
I have a letter from my constituent Mrs. O'Toole of Spalding, in which she makes the point about rurality. She tells me that, since the provisions in Spalding were reduced, her family has been forced to travel to Peterborough for casualty facilities, a round trip of 50 miles.
Two still more fundamental problems remain with the Government's approach. The first was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in his opening remarks, and it concerns the difference between clinical and political judgments. I shall elucidate by identifying the differences between efficacy and priority, and between cost-effectiveness and affordability.
The second fundamental problem concerns the measurement of outcomes, alluded to by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He made two or three very good points, but unfortunately shrouded them in a good deal of prejudice and bile.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was pleased with me.
Mr. Hayes: My remark was kindly, an example of me at my most generous.
The Labour manifesto states:
With Labour, the measure will be quality of outcome.
However, all hon. Members know that there is a tendency to measure expenditure and the numbers of people passing through the service. Those measures may be perfectly appropriate, but they do not measure the quality of outcome. We must differentiate between discussions of waiting lists, numbers and the amounts of money being spent, and the need to investigate how effectively money is spent, and how that is being delivered in terms of outcome.
The harvest of disappointment is turning into a harvest of despair. The Secretary of State said that urgent cases had been given priority over the winter. That is not the experience of all of my constituents, however. The daughter of a Mrs. Wendy Allen wrote to me to tell me

1049
that her mother, who suffers from a serious condition, was admitted to Leicester royal infirmary on Tuesday 4 January to prepare for an operation to remove half of her liver the next day. However, on Wednesday morning, Mrs. Allen was informed that her operation could not go ahead due to a lack of intensive-care beds.
That is precisely the sort of case to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) referred in his remarks. It is not the experience of my constituents—and I believe that the same is true for the constituents of all hon. Members—that the prioritisation of urgent cases has been delivered in practice.
I do not fear what will happen politically if the Government do not address problems such as those I have described. However, as an honourable and dutiful Member of Parliament, I fear for my constituents, among whom not only cardiac patients will continue to regard the Government as heartless, and not only those seeking maternity care will consider them to be all mouth and no delivery.
6.8 pm
Mr. Stephen Hesford: I shall begin with a word about the position adopted by the Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) asked the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) what the Liberal Democrats would do to fund their approach to the health service. As I sat in the Chamber listening to the debate, I noted the rather idiosyncratic response of the hon. Member for North Devon. Although he did not respond at the time, he wrote at least one cheque while the debate continued. That is a novel solution to the problem. I look forward to the cheque being cashed on behalf of the national health service, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) deserves congratulation for raising the matter of public health—a vital matter that needs to be emphasised at every opportunity. One of the sadnesses of the cycle of debates is that we never get on to such issues.
I come now to the subjects that Conservative Members seem not to want to mention. The debate has been about financial provision, but they did not mention the pledge from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, over five years, the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to the NHS would reach the European average. They never mentioned that, yet it is a key issue. One reason for not mentioning it is their crazy tax pledge, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.
The Prime Minister's pledge requires, year on year for five years, stable and effective growth in the economy. The Tories do not want to discuss the issue because they cannot promise that. Their handling of the economy over 18 years was a cycle of boom and bust. They cannot promise that steady growth, which is why they will not talk about the proportion of GDP matching European funding.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hesford: If I must.
Mr. Swayne: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that the easiest way to achieve a proportion of GDP as a
1050
target would be to engineer an economic downturn. That would secure it quicker than any other method. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that at the current growth rate of 5 per cent. per year, as claimed, it will take us 19 years to reach the level of funding enjoyed by France, and 25 years to reach that enjoyed by Germany?
Mr. Hesford: I wish that I had not given way, but I am generous to a fault.
The other matter that the Tories would not discuss today was their approach to health insurance. It seems surprising in a debate on financial provision that they should say nothing about that. I call it their "one club" approach, and I suspect that they have begun to realise that they have been beating themselves over the head with it. Whether they have abandoned the club, I do not know. If they finally put away the nonsense about privatisation and health insurance, I would be the first to welcome their conversion. I suspect, however, that that is not the case. They privately harbour that wish, but have not had the courtesy or decency to mention it in the debate.
I listened to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) address a conference of general practitioners in Bristol. He was asked how far we could push the burden, and who would pay for the expansion of private health insurance. He said two strange things, which may explain why he will not talk now about this aspect. He was asked whether, if he were Secretary of State and he thought that people should take out private health insurance, he would he give all members of public sector services private health insurance. He burst out laughing and said no, he would not. Why would he not give that commitment if it is such a sensible way forward? The answer is cost.
More telling was the hon. Gentleman's remark that the burden should be put on to private business. That answer went against his own logic. Pressed on how far that could be taken, he said, "But not too much." He recognised the flaw in the argument—that lumping private health insurance on to private business would burden it with a cost that it does not now face. The Tories are seeking to impose burdens on the private sector business community. The hon. Gentleman had to say, in a lighthearted way, that the burden should not be put on too many companies. What does that mean? Who will pick up that bill? It is a chaotic approach.
Bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman was addressing an audience of GPs, it is not surprising that he was asked from the floor, "If you want to bring private sector money into the health service, where does that leave us?" The hon. Gentleman said something like, "It's not for you; it would be too much trouble to introduce those arrangements for GPs." So GPs, who make up 90 per cent. or so of the health service in terms of seeing patients, would not be included in those insurance provisions.
When the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke for the Opposition on health, she said:
I think if someone wants to pay to see their GP, they should be encouraged to do so … The problem with the NHS is that we do not charge for much of what we do."
Which is it? Do the Tories really have no intention of funding visits to the GP by imposing charges?
Dr. Fox: I will put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery for a moment while he gathers his thoughts. It is

1051
obvious that very few insurers offer any cover anywhere for general practice problems. It is common sense that any expansion of the non-NHS sector would be unlikely to focus on general practice. That is blindingly obvious to anyone—except, it seems, the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hesford: I am amazed by that intervention, which brings me to my next point.
Rather curiously, the hon. Gentleman also said at that meeting—and I have seen it reported elsewhere on a number of occasions—that the insurance sector, on his own estimation, is not up to the job. It is diabolical at the moment; it does not serve the public. When will it start serving the public? When will this be a credible policy? As the Prime Minister has said in Question Time, it is a Trojan horse. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, privatisation by any other name.
To paraphrase a former Member of this House, I say this to members of the public who take note of these debates, "Under the hon. Gentleman's regime, don't become elderly, don't need a hip operation, don't need a knee operation, don't need a hernia operation, don't need a cataract operation. If you do, they will make you pay for it, and if you can't afford it, you won't get it."
I want to discuss what is happening in my constituency. I cannot believe that Wirral is unique in this regard. It was interesting that in his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman refused to go into detail or give any examples—I wonder why, considering that this is an Opposition debate. It may have been because of a lack of clear examples. I contacted the chief executives of my community trust, the health authority and the acute trust. I read them the title of the debate and asked them to comment on it in the light of their experience in Wirral.
The chief executive of the community trust said that he is satisfied with the current year's financial position. He went on to say that the trust has benefited considerably from the modernisation agenda, and gave the example of NHS Direct. I welcome the introduction of that in the Wirral.
The chief executive of the health authority said that there are sufficient resources to address the current programme and there is no evidence on the Wirral of a skewing of clinical priorities. He knows of no local consultants who are saying that such a distortion is happening. On the Wirral, local consultants with waiting lists and other priorities to take into account have been able to show sensitivity and flexibility and deal with each priority to the satisfaction of all concerned. The chief executive described that to me as a clinically sound case mix. Skewing clinical priorities is not an inherent part of the waiting list initiative, as is claimed by Conservative Members.
The chief executive of the acute trust, who is, perhaps, put on the spot more than anybody by the waiting list initiative, said that he has not been under any financial pressure at all in the current financial year, and in terms of capital investment this is the best year that the trust has had since its inception in 1991.
Mr. Hayes: As the hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting health professionals and their confidence in the Government's ability to deliver, will he reflect on the British Medical Association's view? It has written to the
1052
Prime Minister to tell him that the Government's habit of constantly reannouncing the same figures is making it impossible for the health professionals, whom the hon. Gentleman is quoting, to plan the effective delivery of the service. The BMA has not had a reply from the Prime Minister. Would the hon. Gentleman care to reply?
Mr. Hesford: If I may, I will leave that to the parties concerned.
I endorse the Secretary of State's remark in a recent speech in Birmingham:
There is no funding system or health care system that is fairer or more efficient than the NHS.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Lady—
Mr. Swayne rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman.
6.22 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The greatest potential distortion of clinical priorities—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might just say to hon. Members that it is as well to pay attention to the debate. If no one had risen on the Opposition Benches, an hon. Member on the Government Benches could have been called. I hope that hon. Members will concentrate and not spend too much time gossiping.
Mr. Swayne: I hope that your stricture was not aimed at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for I am bereft of anyone with whom to gossip.
It strikes me that the greatest potential for distortion of clinical priorities lies with the very mechanism that the Secretary of State has set up to do away with those distortions: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. When the Health Act 1999 went through the House, we were assured that the institute's terms of reference would be merely clinical efficiency and effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In Committee Room 16 last July, the Minister introduced a change to those terms of reference, under which the institute had to consider also the overall affordability to the health service of any decision that it made. In other words, the Secretary of State would be able to hide behind the implications of any decision by NICE.
I welcomed the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), when he said, "No, I will make decisions on funding and on whether to make provision for certain treatments." The exchange was about beta interferon, which is appropriate given the lobby today. I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State will make those decisions, but it strikes me as rather odd that he introduced the change last July.
It is, of course, appropriate that the question of whether a treatment should be available is one of overall funding to the health service. We have flogged the question of funding this evening, but it is only the Government who are to blame for the general lack of confidence in their figures. The fact that they claim to have provided an additional £21 billion for the health service in this Parliament was interestingly questioned by Mr. Kellner's article in the Evening Standard on 14 January. He said

1053
that there had been a process of triple accounting, and the actual figure was nearer £5 billion. The fact that the Government's figures should be questioned in that way is a consequence of their own systematic spinning.
The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) referred to the Government's latest pledge. They aspire to spend on health care a percentage of gross domestic product equivalent to the European Union's average spend on health care. That begs one or two questions. It is estimated that it will take us eight years to get there, at an annual increase of 5 per cent. in real terms, but by then the European average may have significantly increased, and I do not doubt that it will.
Why do UK patients deserve a lower level of health care outcomes than that enjoyed by patients in France and Germany? Those countries enjoy a much higher proportion of health care expenditure than the European average. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the current aim of increasing health care expenditure by 5 per cent. in real terms each year means that it will take many years to reach the levels of expenditure in France and Germany-19 and 25 years respectively.
Mr. Hayes: I do not want to indulge in gossip, but will my hon. Friend illustrate his point by reference to beta interferon? The number of multiple sclerosis sufferers prescribed beta interferon in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland, Greece, Ireland and Turkey is considerably greater than in Great Britain. Perhaps that is why my constituent Mr. Kevin Keeble, of Roman Bank, Holbeach Bank, cannot get the drug.
Mr. Swayne: I have no need to illustrate the point because my hon. Friend has done it so effectively.
It is all very well saying that in a few years' or, indeed, in many years' time we will achieve European levels of expenditure on health care, because the crisis is happening now. It may be stretching the point to say that, in some respects, this country has a third-world level of health care, but anyone who read the series of articles in The Daily Telegraph just before Christmas about the level of treatment available to many of our elderly people would not think it an exaggeration. We have much lower levels of satisfactory health outcomes for critical diseases such as heart conditions and cancer care than in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, and that is not acceptable.
Returning to clinical distortion, we know that out-patient waiting lists have risen by 248,000 since the election. Even in-patient waiting lists—a higher priority target for the Government—rose by 36,000 in December alone. However, the greatest potential clinical distortion is the alarming growth in the number of patients waiting to get on to a waiting list, and who are awaiting their first appointment with a hospital consultant. That number has risen by some 500,000. Those people represent a clinical distortion because we do not know what is wrong with them and they have not been assessed by a consultant.
It is all very well the Secretary of State making a gibe at our proposals by saying about the winter crisis, "We wouldn't be guilty of turning people away because of the wrong sort of illness." The fact is that, at the moment, people with critical conditions are being turned away.
A constituency case was brought to my attention of an elderly lady who was seriously ill with bowel cancer. Her operation was cancelled because of the winter crisis.
1054
Last week, Dr. Peter Wilde, consultant cardiologist at the Bristol Royal infirmary, told the Prime Minister clearly that, if he had been able to operate on all the patients with heart conditions under his care, he would have saved the lives of half of them.
The Secretary of State and, indeed, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) have made it clear that there is no certainty of any relief from the private health care sector. The Secretary of State said that there was not an army of under-employed surgeons who could suddenly take up the slack. That is, of course, true, because often enough—in fact, usually—the very same people operate in both the private and public sectors.
However, it is monstrous to suggest that the private sector cannot provide some capacity. We all know—I certainly know, and I doubt whether I am the only person who has had this brought to his attention—that NHS operations are being cancelled because of cash shortages. Such operations could take place using resources available in the private sector—and they ought to do so. That was the basis of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and it goes to the heart of our patients guarantee.
Our solution, which has of course been much criticised by the Secretary of State, is to provide a core NHS in which those with, let us say, Cinderella conditions such as hernias and in-growing toenails would be treated elsewhere and would pay for it. I reject any such suggestion. In fact, it strikes me as monstrous that any such health service could be devised. It is ridiculous to suggest that, for example, varicose veins would have to be treated outside the NHS because the condition was not critical or life threatening and therefore did not meet the criteria that might be devised for a core health service. Although a varicose vein might almost be a matter of cosmetic surgery to one person, it might be a life-threatening condition, causing severe ulcers, to another.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Will the hon. Gentleman help me and other hon. Members by giving his interpretation of the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, who told "Sky News" that, under the Conservatives, people would look to the NHS
when they had serious life-threatening conditions and would look to their private insurance to help them
with the rest? The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing a rather different point.
Mr. Swayne: I do not think that that is so. I am not here to speak for my hon. Friend, but I shall honestly tell the Minister what I think my hon. Friend meant—I shall certainly tell him what I mean.
If we are honest and work within the same resource restraints, reprioritising the NHS so that the sickest patients are given the highest priority and treated first—I assume that that would be entirely reasonable to all people—will of necessity mean that people with less critical conditions will wait longer.
One problem that results from fixation with the overall size of the waiting list is that some people are not waiting long enough. Simple conditions are treated quickly to massage the overall figures while those with more critical conditions are waiting. If, as a result of a patients

1055
guarantee, the sickest patients are treated first, those with lower clinical priorities might consider other possibilities. That is, after all, the basis of freedom of choice. Such a structure would crystallise and focus the private insurance market, unlike the current position, and might result in the development of products that addressed many of our people's needs.
Mr. Trickett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swayne: No, I am afraid that I do not have the time to give way.
In addition to prioritisation of existing resources, we must of necessity seek to increase such resources. Labour Members believe that spending in the existing NHS model, almost alone in providing for the health care needs of the United Kingdom, can reach the European average. I suggest that they look elsewhere in the world—they are alone. In no other nation is such a proportion of gross national product spent without a much healthier contribution from the private sector.
There has been much criticism of our ability to continue to fund the health service as in the past owing to our overall tax guarantee.
Mr. Trickett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swayne: No, I will not give way; I have told the hon. Gentleman so.
It should have been obvious to anyone with experience of the 1980s that cutting the burden of taxation generates additional tax revenue.
6.36 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I appreciate that I do not have much time to speak, so I shall be brief and not indulge in too much rhetoric.
We have heard a great deal of rhetoric from Opposition Members—despite the fact that there have been only two to four of them in the Chamber throughout—but we have not heard anything approaching a policy. We have also heard much gloom, doom and despondency from them, which saddens me. Frankly, they need to get out more. They need to go to hospitals, to visit general practices, and to speak to nurses, doctors, health workers and, above all, patients. If they did so, they would find that most patients are very satisfied with the health service. Survey after survey has revealed a very high degree not only of satisfaction but of trust in those who provide health care—more than can be said of politicians.
It is obviously the job of the Opposition to rubbish the Government, and they are doing what they consider a good job—others may have other views and I could not possibly comment. However, it upsets me greatly when I hear the health service being run down. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who is no longer present, said several times that we have the worst health service in Europe. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) talked about the third-world status of our health service. Those are disgraceful comments, which I deplore. They drive down public confidence,
1056
morale and the standards that the 1 million people working in the health service strive daily to achieve for their patients. I shall give an example of that.
I recently visited a very elderly patient, of whom I do not see much—I still do some GP work, as hon. Members know. She asked me to look at a lump in her breast. When I examined her at home, I found that she had a fungating breast cancer, which is a very advanced form of cancer, unpleasant to deal with, a nasty thing to have and medically very bad news. I asked her why she had waited so long before calling me, and she said that she had discovered the lump only the week before. I said, "That is not true, is it?" She said that it was not but that she did not want to trouble me. I told her that I had known her for many years and that she knew that she was not troubling me. The truth was that she had read in the paper that elderly people did not matter in the NHS, and concluded that there was no point in calling me because there was nothing much that I could do.
What saddens me is that I know that, within two weeks of seeing that lady, I could guarantee that she would be seen by a cancer specialist in the local hospital's breast unit, where she would receive expert care. She had read in the papers not the good news that this Government have made cancer treatment a priority, so that people can be seen within two weeks of their GP referring them, but that elderly people did not matter. If we talk down the health service and those who work in it, we drive down patient expectation. People expect bad treatment before they even start.
Another patient whom I saw recently told me not to bother referring her because she would never get to the top of the queue of those waiting to be seen. That is not true; I know that my health trust has relatively modest waiting lists for her condition.
Opposition Members have every right to rubbish the Government—that is what they do—but they have no right to drive down the NHS and the morale of its staff, or to frighten patients. If they are to rubbish us, they should at least have the goodness and decency to come up with their own policies—which are lacking.
6.40 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I am disappointed by the debate. We have again missed an opportunity to lay aside cheap political points and to debate health care in this country with honesty.
Criticisms of the Opposition motion overlook the fundamental point. The Opposition can, of course, choose what to put in their motion. Our last health debate, on 18 January, was held in close proximity to what the Government then described as a flu epidemic. I note that today the Secretary of State described the winter just passed as "no exception". That is what general practitioners told us at the time. The purpose of our motion on that occasion was to allow debate on the impact of the flu crisis. Today's debate is held very near the end of the financial year for health trusts and authorities, so it strikes me as perfectly sensible to make that the main focus of our debate. However, although the debate has ranged far and wide, it has not focused on the roots of the financial crisis facing the national health service, or on the impact on patients of the distortion of clinical practice.
Patients who have to wait and who have operations cancelled no longer feel that they come first. The Government's waiting list initiative has undermined

1057
clinical priorities; and to those who have to wait, it appears that the Government's priorities come first. That is anathema to health professionals who are trained to treat patients according to clinical need: they are trained to be able to rush into casualty in time of crisis and to decide within minutes who should be treated first. That is what prompted GP Sharon Bennett to tackle the Prime Minister on "Newsnight". She pointed out that
Most managers are under extreme pressure to reach the targets. Waiting lists are being manipulated and as a doctor I find that completely unethical.
Ask doctors to do the unethical and they soon become demoralised. Ask patients to submit to the unethical and they soon lose faith in the service.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) hit the nail on the head when he said that one of the main purposes of the debate was to tackle the issue of unrealistic expectations. The Government have raised expectations so high that they now fail even approximately to match people's experience. The extra billions that we have heard about mean nothing to the patients waiting anxiously for the treatment they need. It is as well if we as politicians remind ourselves of that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) told us of 14 people who have had to wait more than 18 months. The extra billions do not appear to have reached them. To his information about cancelled operations, I should like to add that, in the last financial year, 57,000 operations were cancelled, and 9,000 of those who suffered cancellation were not recalled within a month. To them, some of today's debate will have been meaningless; they just want to get their treatment.
We as politicians and as the Opposition have the job of asking questions about the money that has been spent. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) for having summed up as neatly as anyone could the problem with the Government's elastic arithmetic. He did so in inches; as I see my children grow, I can relate to his methods. He said that if three inches, three inches and three inches are added together, the result is nine inches. That is pretty easy. In simple mathematical terms, three times three is nine. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to Peter Kellner's article, which pointed out that the claimed £18 billion is more akin to £5 billion once general inflation has been stripped out. Lord Winston was right about that; he was also right to speak his mind.
From that £5 billion, we have to take the £500 million deficit accrued by trusts and health authorities. My constituency is sandwiched between Birmingham health authority, which, as we have already heard, has a deficit of £8.6 million, and Warwickshire health authority, which has a deficit of £8.2 million. Managers in both trusts have told me that the problem is not only money that is promised but never received or that fails to match spiralling costs, but the parcelling of money in a way that makes operating based on clinical priority far more difficult: attaching money to particular uses creates great inflexibility.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) is keen on surveys, so here is one for him. Last year, the NHS Confederation carried out a survey of trusts and health authorities. It showed that 64 per cent. of trusts were less confident about their financial position than they were 12 months ago, and the figures we have discussed today
1058
tell us why that is; 55 per cent. of trusts believed that income would exceed expenditure by up to £5 million—my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring showed how costs increase; 37 per cent. of trusts believed that they would have to make cuts in direct service provision during the coming financial year to balance their budget; 24 per cent. of trusts said that their financial position meant that they would have to postpone or cancel developments in the Government's priority area, mental health; and 20 per cent. of trusts said that their financial position meant that they would have to postpone or cancel developments in the area of reducing health inequalities. That all makes unattractive reading, but we are debating the financing of the NHS and whether or not it is in crisis, and that is the right debate to be having at this point in the financial year.
It does not help public confidence one iota to re-announce money. We heard about an especially bad example, in which £30 million spent on accident and emergency facilities was announced seven times—that is right over the top. The Government appear to have reached the stage of believing their own rhetoric. In one breath, the Secretary of State said of the £50 million boost to cardiac surgery that it was new, extra money; with the next breath, he said that it was part of the extra £21 billion that the Government are putting into the NHS. I guess that, if it is said enough times, even a Minister believes it. That sort of thing has undermined confidence in the Government's pledges. On the question of matching European funding for health care, even the Prime Minister is caught between a firm pledge and an aspiration. Everything depends on a great "if'—if the economy performs well, and if the Government can afford it. That is the biggest "if' we have ever heard.
In a recent speech delivered in South Ribble, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said:
The British people want a system which guarantees that nobody ever has to endure the harrowing experience of someone whose treatment was postponed so often it became inoperable. They want a system that doesn't put half a million patients on the waiting list to get on the waiting list … a system in which doctors decide who should be treated, when and … no wait exceeds a clinical maximum. The Government has meddled with the system, making the sickest wait longest, which is … simply wrong. Staff are demoralised because they can't do what they were trained to do. The Government has raised expectations but they don't match people's experience. For the first time in a generation, we have a chance to hold an honest debate on how to buttress the NHS but the Government has closed its mind. The Prime Minister says there is "no alternative" to the Government's present strategy. What a missed opportunity! There is debate everywhere—in the press, in the professions and amongst the public. But the Government won't debate the options.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the NHS deserves better.
6.49 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): This has been an Opposition-day debate on a topic chosen by the Opposition. It is therefore a shame for the Opposition that, from the opening speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the debate from the Opposition side has lacked focus, facts, policy alternatives, analysis and, for a good deal of the time, an audience. It speaks volumes that, for a considerable part of the afternoon, only two Members from the Opposition party bothered to turn up for an Opposition-day debate.

1059
On the subjects covered in the motion under discussion—financial management and deficits—the worst that we could deduce from the facts that emerged in the debate was that the situation was at least twice as bad in the last two years of the Tory Government as the worst that has been projected for the current year, and that does not take into account the extra funds that we have put into the health service over the past couple of years.
Cancelled operations were raised by the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), yet there was less chance of an operation being cancelled during the first two years of the present Government than during the last two years of the previous Government. That does not mean that the situation is good, or that we are happy that anyone's operation is cancelled, but the situation is better than it was before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) raised a number of issues, principally private medicine. I understand his continuing concern, but the Government's view is that our priority should be to concentrate on the time for which consultants are contracted to work for the national health service, and to ensure that we get the best contribution during that time. That is where we are focusing our effort in our discussions with the British Medical Association about a new contract.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) had the same difficulty as other Opposition Members who spoke—he did not understand the policy of his own party, when he said that he did not want the privatisation of many services provided by the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is right to be proud of the new hospital that the NHS and the Government are delivering for his constituents. He raised the question of the funding formula, as did the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). A review of the funding formula is under way. There will be no changes, other than the statistical changes, until we have the findings of the review. A wide range of factors will be taken into account in the review, and I cannot prejudge the outcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) correctly pointed out the huge unanswered questions at the heart of what we know about current Opposition policy.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West made me wonder, as he always does, what the other candidates in his selection conference were like.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) rightly underlined the good work of the NHS. It is important to strike a balance between the proper discussion of issues that have yet to be resolved in the health service, and the presentation of a negative view that might persuade some patients not to take up the services on offer.
To the extent that there was any focus in the debate, it was the attack on the Government's pledge to reduce waiting lists and our determination to honour the promise that we made to voters at the last election. We will reduce waiting lists and honour that election promise, and we will do so for good reason. Fewer people on waiting lists means fewer people waiting for treatment. The main way in which we cut waiting lists is by treating more patients.
1060
It is as simple as that. More patients were treated last year, more are being treated this year and more will be treated next year. Those who say, as the Opposition do by implication, that we should let waiting lists rip are effectively saying that we should treat fewer patients.
Dr. Fox: That is not the case. The question is whether the correct patients are being treated, and whether patients are being treated in the right order. The Secretary of State said that under the waiting list initiative, there had been and would be no clinical distortion, but almost the entire medical profession says the opposite. When Dr. Wilde says that his patients died unnecessarily, having to wait because of clinical distortion, is he wrong or is he lying?
Mr. Denham: Let us look at the evidence. The charge that is made not infrequently is that the complex, difficult operations and those that are likely to require a stay in hospital are being reduced. The facts are as my right hon. Friend said earlier. There were 1,000 extra bypass operations last year. There were more hip operations and more knee replacement operations. There is no evidence that those complex, time-consuming operations have been cut to allow other operations to be carried out.
Mr. Burns rose—
Mr. Denham: I shall make progress.
The hon. Member for Woodspring produced no evidence to sustain his charge. Those who say that we should not be reducing waiting lists ought to tell us which of the extra half a million people who had operations last year would not have had them had the Conservative party been in power.
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, in the past there was always a deathly silence when we asked which patients should not be treated. The hon. Gentleman has changed all that. He has told us, through The Sunday Times, which operations should not be done, unless people can pay for them: hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts and hernias. That is an outrageous attack on the rights of patients, mainly elderly patients, to the NHS treatment for which they have paid all their lives.
On 16 January, the hon. Gentleman told The Sunday Times that private medical insurance companies should cover such conditions as
hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations,
and his hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) told Sky News that the Conservatives wanted people to look to the NHS
when they had serious life-threatening conditions, and . . . to their private insurance to help them
with the rest.
The hon. Member for Woodspring should clarify the situation and get The Sunday Times to retract. He has had two months to do so, but he has not done so yet. He had the entire debate this afternoon during which to do so, but he did not.
Dr. Fox rose—
Mr. Denham: Let us hear from the hon. Gentleman. It would be interesting to hear a quick retraction and an assurance that there will be no change in people's ability to get those operations on the NHS.
Dr. Fox: As I said this afternoon, if it is a question of maintaining the NHS as a comprehensive service, I absolutely accept that. What the Minister and his colleagues cannot conceive is that additionality is possible, and that an increase in capacity and more cases treated by the private sector would offload the NHS. That would be a total increase in capacity, and it is only the Government's ideological bigotry that prevents them from being able to accept the truth.
Mr. Denham: The entire House will have noted that I gave the hon. Gentleman time in my speech to reject the charge that we have made and to withdraw any misconstruction that we had put on what he said. The entire House now knows that he failed to reject the charge and failed to ask us to withdraw. He has confirmed the information. The 300,000 elderly people who had those operations last year and those who are waiting for them this year—for hips, cataracts, hernias and knees—now know that they would have to pay under a Tory Government.
We shall get waiting lists down not by trading in-patients against out-patients, not by doing one instead of the other, but by doing more of both. Clinical priority will continue to be the main determinant of who is treated.
Of course, we must do more, because the waiting list initiative alone is not enough to meet need. We acknowledge that, and we have therefore included in the waiting list initiative the two-week target for cancer waits. That will be introduced this year, because some people must be seen as quickly as possible. The Conservative party did not introduce such measures.
Although 1,000 extra heart operations will be done next year, we need more. We will therefore allocate £50 million so that 3,000 extra heart operations can be carried out. We give priority where it is needed.
The Conservative party chose the debate. Its members failed to score any points; they largely failed to turn up. They have confirmed that, under a Tory Government, many important procedures would no longer be available on the NHS. To that extent, the debate has been useful.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 307.

Division No. 97]

[7.1 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Brazier, Julian

Allan, Richard

Breed, Colin

Amess, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Burnett, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Burns, Simon

Baker, Norman

Burstow, Paul

Baldry, Tony

Butterfill, John

Ballard, Jackie

Cable, Dr Vincent

Beggs, Roy

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE File)

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Bercow, John

Cash, William

Beresford, Sir Paul

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Blunt, Crispin

Boswell, Tim

Chope, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Clappison, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Brady, Graham

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Brake, Tom

1062

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Maples, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mates, Michael

Cotter, Brian

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Cran, James

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

May, Mrs Theresa

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Day, Stephen

Moore, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Nicholls, Patrick

Duncan, Alan

Norman, Archie

Duncan Smith, Iain

Oaten, Mark

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Evans, Nigel

Öpik, Lembit

Faber, David

Ottaway, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Paice, James

Fallon, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Feam, Ronnie

Pickles, Eric

Forsythe, Clifford

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Prior, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Randall, John

Fox, Dr Liam

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fraser, Christopher

Rendel, David

Gale, Roger

Robathan, Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Robertson, Laurence

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Roe Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gibb, Nick

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gill, Christopher

Ruffley David

Gray, James

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Green, Damian

St Aubyn, Nick

Greenway, John

Sanders, Adrian

Grieve, Dominic

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gummer Rt Hon john

Shepherd, Richard

Hague, Rt Hon William

Smith Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Hamilton Rt Hon Sir Archie

Smyth, Rev Maritn (Belfast S)

Hammond, Philip

Soames, Nicholas

Hancock.Mike

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Harris, Dr Evan

Spicer, Sir Michel

Harvey, Nick

Spring, Richard

Hayes, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Heald, Oliver

Steen, Anthony

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Streeter, Gary

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Stunell, Andrew

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Syms, Robert

Horam, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Taylon Ian (Esher & Watton)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jenkin, Bernard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Thompson, William

Keetch, Paul

Townend, John

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Key, Robert

Tyler, Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Tyrie, Andrew

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Viggers, Peter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Walter, Robert

Lansley, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Webb, Steve

Letwin, Oliver

Wells, Bowen

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Welsh, Andrew

Lidington, David

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Whittingdale, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Loughton, Tim

Wilkinson, John

Luff, Peter

Willis, Phil

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

Malins, Humfrey

Mr. Keith Simpson.

1063

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Alexander, Douglas

Dawson, Hilton

Allen, Graham

Dean, Mrs Janet

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Denham, John

Ashton, Joe

Dobbin, Jim

Atherton, Ms Candy

Doran, Frank

Atkins, Charlotte

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Austin, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Barnes, Harry

Efford, Clive

Battle, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bayley, Hugh

Ennis, Jeff

Beard, Nigel

Etherington, Bill

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Begg, Miss Anne

Fisher, Mark

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Bennett, Andrew F

Flint, Caroline

Benton, Joe

Flynn, Paul

Bermingham, Gerald

Follett, Barbara

Berry, Roger

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Best, Harold

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Betts, Clive

Fyfe, Maria

Blackman, Liz

Galloway, George

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gardiner, Barry

Blizzard, Bob

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Bradshaw, Ben

Godsiff, Roger

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Goggins, Paul

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Browne, Desmond

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Buck, Ms Karen

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Burden, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burgon, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Grocott, Bruce

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Hanson, David

Cann, Jamie

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Caplin, Ivor

Healey, John

Casale, Roger

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Cawsey, Ian

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Chaytor, David

Heppell, John

Clapham, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Hill, Keith

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hoey, Kate

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hood, Jimmy

Clelland, David

Hope, Phil

Clwyd, Ann

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Colman, Tony

Humble, Mrs Joan

Connarty, Michael

Hurst, Alan

Cooper, Yvette

Hutton, John

Corbett, Robin

Iddon, Dr Brian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Corston, Jean

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cousins, Jim

Jenkins, Brian

Cranston, Ross

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Crausby, David

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Cummings, John

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Darvill, Keith

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

1064

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Prosser, Gwyn

Kemp, Fraser

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kidney, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Kilfoyle, Peter

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Rapson, Syd

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Raynsford, Nick

Laxton, Bob

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Lepper, David

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Leslie, Christopher

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Levitt, Tom

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Love, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McCabe, Steve

Ryan, Ms Joan

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Salter, Martin

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Savidge, Malcolm

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sawford, Phil

Macdonald, Calum

Sedgemore, Brian

McDonnell, John

Sheerman, Barry

McFall, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Singh, Marsha

McIsaac, Shona

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Soley, Clive

Mallaber, Judy

Southworth, Ms Helen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Spellar, John

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stevenson, George

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Martlew, Eric

Stinchcombe, Paul

Maxton, John

Stoate, Dr Howard

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Meale, Alan

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Merron, Gillian

Stringer, Graham

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mitchell, Austin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moffatt, Laura

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mountford, Kali

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mullin, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Trickett, Jon

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Truswell, Paul

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pearson, Ian

Tynan, Bill

Pendry, Tom

Vis, Dr Rudi

Perham, Ms Linda

Ward, Ms Claire

Pickthall, Colin

Wareing, Robert N

Pike, Peter L

Watts, David

Plaskitt, James

White, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pond, Chris

Wicks, Malcolm

Pound, Stephen

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

1065

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Worthington, Tony

Wills, Michael

Wray, James

Wilson, Brian

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Winnick David

Wright', Dr Tony (Cannock)

Winnick, David

Wyatt, Derek

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wise, Audrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Woodward, Shaun

Mr. Jim Dowd and

Woolas, Phil

Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's modernisation programme for the NHS and the reduction in waiting lists and times that are being achieved through the dedication and hard work of NHS staff; notes the progress being made on recruiting more doctors and more nurses, building more hospitals, treating more patients and modernising more services; applauds the Government's decision to make tackling cancer, coronary heart disease and mental illness a priority; believes that financial provision for the NHS would be reduced as a consequence of the Conservatives' Tax Guarantee and that clinical need would be abandoned in favour of ability to pay under the Conservatives' health plans.

Small Business
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That this House opposes the growing regulatory burdens that the Government has added to business costs; deplores the failure of the Government to understand the contribution that the small business sector makes to employment, growth and UK trade; calls on the Government to recognise the failure of the Better Regulation Task Force and the consequences of ill-thought-through legislation and regulations that have damaged small business; and condemns the Department of Trade and Industry for unco-ordinated policy initiatives and for diminishing the status of small business debate in the House of Commons.
I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for tonight's debate. He is here to discuss, at our request, small business and the burden that it bears. I believe that this will be the first time that he has addressed the House on that subject at any length since taking office and I am therefore pleased to see him. I look forward with interest to hearing what he has to say.
New Labour promised small business a lot when it came to office. Indeed, its manifesto said:
Support for small businesses will have a major role in our plans for economic growth. We will cut unnecessary red tape.
Three years down the track, the Government avoid debates on small business and have deliberately done the subject down. There is a reason for that, of course, which is that their track record over the past three years has been to add £9.6 billion of regulatory costs to business. They fall disproportionately on the small business sector.
The Government also implement regulations in such a way that even their own chairman of the better regulation taskforce called it a dog's dinner. They were described in a Trade and Industry Committee report in terms that have not previously been seen in such reports on this subject. For example, the 13th report, on small businesses and enterprise, stated:
From the situation as we saw it a year ago, where there seemed to be something of a policy vacuum on SMEs—
small and medium-sized enterprises—
we have moved to one where there is some risk of an excess of loosely connected and apparently uncoordinated policy initiatives shooting off in all directions, generating noise and interest, but not commensurate light.
When the Government came to power, they promised an annual debate on small firms and made quite a virtue of that. We certainly do not disagree with holding such a debate, but the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry began the debate in the first year of the Parliament by saying that it
fulfils a commitment that the Government gave while in opposition, when we said that we would institute an annual parliamentary debate about the small business sector in the United Kingdom.—[Official Report, 19 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 606.]
They did not have a small firms debate the following year. Indeed, at business questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, kept asking when we might

1067
have such a debate. A whole year went by. When it eventually took place, it was relegated to Westminster Hall. As the British Chambers of Commerce said:
From our perspective this has to be a downgrading of the importance of small firms. This debate should be in the House of Commons with the Prime Minister. It does not signal that the government is taking small firms seriously.
Even when the Government appear to have proposals to help small firms, the Secretary of State remains silent. Last June, they produced two documents, one of which was specifically about small firms and the Small Business Service. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment made a statement on post-16 training and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sat next to him as both documents were important to business, but the only reference to the Small Business Service document throughout the statement amounted to some 21 words.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment referred to
the parallel consultation on the Small Business Service announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.—[Official Report, 30 June 1999; Vol. 334, c. 345.]
There was no detailed presentation in that statement. It is a mystery why, if the Small Business Service is to be of such value to the small business community, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry remained silent in his seat and did not take the opportunity to make a statement and, perhaps more pertinently, submit himself to questioning from the House about the new proposal that he was introducing on behalf of small businesses.
The Secretary of State will do anything rather than answer publicly for his failure to understand small businesses. Most important of all, by last year it was apparent to everyone, including small businesses and their representative organisations, that the Government and these Ministers are all talk and no delivery.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Would the hon. Lady be kind enough to tell us how often her Administration held lectures, or rather debates, on small business services?
Mrs. Browning: We did not lecture the House, whereas we are used to having lectures from this Administration, not only on small business, but on just about everything. We held regular debates but, more important, Ministers in the previous Administration made statements to the House and held full debates. On both occasions, they were subject to questioning, whereas this Administration, especially the Secretary of State and his team, are reluctant to submit themselves to the scrutiny and questioning of hon. Members.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the early part of the Conservative Administration, we had Ministers, such as Sir David Mitchell, who understood businesses because they had run small businesses and brought their experience to the House?
Mrs. Browning: It is an added bonus when Ministers who speak on a subject actually know what they are talking about. That is one of the distinctions between the previous and the present Governments when it comes to any matter to do with business, but especially small businesses.
1068
Not only are this Administration adding to business costs they have completely lost the plot.
Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
Mrs. Browning: I am happy to give way on that point.
Mr. Davies: How very amusing. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the figure of £9.6 billion is based on old regulations? It is based primarily on the minimum wage, which I understand she will support, so the Conservatives would have that cost. Does she accept that the figure for the working time directive is massively inflated? Would she reverse the working time directive should the Tories come to power? I suggest that she could not do so, because of EU law.
Mrs. Browning: All the burdens that the hon. Gentleman's Administration are putting on business are under review. They are all on the table, and are being closely considered.
The figure that I quoted for the total of the aggregate cost that the Government have put on business was produced by the British Chambers of Commerce. It was challenged by the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce in the debate in Westminster Hall. The British Chambers of Commerce subsequently issued a press release, which I shall quote as it may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. It was responding to the fact that the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce had claimed that the figures were inaccurate—along the lines of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Chris Humphries, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
What matters to business is the overall cost of government regulation. We therefore stand by our overall figure of £10 billion and, in particular, the costs of the Working Time Directive.
The Working Time Directive is by far the biggest cost facing business at £7.65 billion over the life of the Parliament. This includes the cost of minimum daily and weekly rest periods and a minimum paid annual leave, and the additional week's paid leave introduced from November 1999. This is of course the result of a European Directive but regardless of the source, business has to bear the cost.
However, I must stress that, contrary to reports—
that is the reports from the Department of Trade and Industry—
BCC's figures do not include the cost of paying the minimum wage, which we do not treat as a regulation. If we were to add the recurring financial costs of paying the minimum wage, the total cost of red tape on business would increase to a massive £17 billion.
I hope that that has been helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Lady confirm that those costs would continue under a Conservative Administration, and that there is no plan to reverse either the minimum wage or the working time directive? What is the point of bringing these matters to the table? It is not even true.
Mrs. Browning: I am happy to assist the hon. Gentleman. One thing that is pertinent to small business in particular and to business in general is the cumulative cost of regulation. It is not this regulation or that regulation, but the cumulative cost of regulations and the point at which that has an impact on whether a business can expand, move to new premises or take on new

1069
employees. That is why the British Chambers of Commerce say that it is the overall cost of Government regulation.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mrs. Browning: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the British Chambers of Commerce that is reporting such burdens on business? I understand that, this coming Friday, Lord Haskins, who was appointed by the Government to monitor regulation, will report that the administration of the working families tax credit costs small businesses £25 million a year. One of the Government's own appointees is reporting that.
Mrs. Browning: Lord Haskins chaired the better regulation taskforce. The Government claim to have tackled regulation, but they have had two key problems. When they have regulated, especially in the area of employment law, they have regarded it not as a cost on business, but as a social benefit that they have provided to people. The tab has always been picked up by business.
It is a little disingenuous for the Government to add regulation to regulation, thus adding to businesses' costs, and then to say, "Aren't we wonderful? We are providing workers with extra benefits. Someone else will have to decide how to pay for it". That is part of the problem that the Government have created, and it is the main reason why their better regulation taskforce failed.
Despite the efforts of Lord Haskins and others on the taskforce, regulation was moving apace, and they could not keep up with it, let alone cut it. The taskforce could not even make it better as time went by, given the Government's mismanagement by continually introducing new regulations on business, and given the inept way in which they went about their business and implemented regulations that they had put on the statute book. The Government had a manifesto pledge to cut red tape, but they added to the amount of regulation and cost until it became so out of control that they had to abandon the better regulation taskforce.
I have just had an exchange with the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) about the views of the British Chambers of Commerce. The Government consult, or so they say, but I am only too well aware that such consultation is meaningless when it comes to the legislative process. The views of business and its representative organisations are not taken into account. We constantly see a pattern in the regulations on small business and in other areas introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments. They legislate and suddenly realise the inept way in which they have gone about it. They then have to shore up the situation by changing the regulations at the last minute. They parade that as listening to business, but the time to listen to business is at the beginning, during the consultation, not after the regulations are on the statute book and have had a damaging impact on people's businesses.
I should like to draw attention to some of the businesses and the varying sectors that have suffered under the Government. It is all very well to talk of £9.6 billion and
1070
of different sectors, but, at the end of the day, small business is about individuals—individuals who work hard. In many cases, we are talking about small family firms established by someone who may have gone as far as putting his or her house on the line to raise the necessary capital.
As all of us who have run our own companies know—I had 10 years' experience of running a company—it is necessary to get up, go out and secure business every day. Every aspect of the company must be managed. It is exciting; it is challenging; it is rewarding; but it is pretty scary at times. One of the key messages that I receive as I go around the country talking to those running businesses in various sectors is that they want the Government off their backs.
I can give the Government examples of what has happened to businesses in less than three years. A Mr. Chetwynd, who has a machining business in Warwickshire, writes:
I have been in business now for 18 years and I have survived three recessions.
Dr. George Turner: How many did not survive?
Mrs. Browning: Are Labour Members suggesting that, if they were in charge for 18 years—which they will not be—the economic cycle would be as it is today? No one but a fool would say that. I suspect that even their prudent Chancellor would not make such a prediction. I must not allow myself to be distracted from what a real person running a real business has to say, in deference to some apparatchik who has a view on the subject. Mr. Chetwynd continues:
I have expanded my company from 4 employees to 33 in this decade, all without the aid of grants, which I have not been clever enough to exploit.
He believes that most of the problem is
due to this government and their total nonchalance at our predicament and unforgivable lack of knowledge and understanding of what it is like to employ people.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No. I am reading an important letter from someone who is at the sharp end, rather than sitting here and talking about it.
Mr. Chetwynd writes:
The increasing burden on us is intolerable. Do you think they know about the constant cost reductions which we operate under? There is no spare money to keep jobs open to people, or to administer more and more of their responsibilities.
Those responsibilities were formerly paid for by the Government, but Government have now dumped them, as costs, on to businesses. Mr. Chetwynd adds a list showing how his costs have changed since the Government came to office.
The Government say that they listen to, and consult, business. As I have said to business organisations, that sounds all very warm and cosy, but, after three years, are the Government really listening? One would have thought that, during this great consultation period, they would at least have listened, and would have recognised nonsensical regulations, disproportionate regulations, or regulations that do not smack of fairness and justice.

1071
I have a letter from someone who runs a privately managed residential and nursing home. That sector is very concerned. The lady in question writes:
While everybody has to applaud the idea of higher standards for the provision of Care for the Elderly … it has to be understood that it can only be achieved at a higher cost.
It is clear that, although the Government engaged in some form of consultation exercise in regard to changing the regulations for residential and care homes, that does not satisfy this particular home—and I have received many similar letters.
The letter that I have been quoting continues:
The proposals exclude any choice for the Client or their families in deciding that maybe they prefer to pay less for their Care package and are happy with things as they are.
The letter mentions the widening of doorways by 1.5 in, 10 sq m of usable space—not to include a door opening space—additional sitting and lounge areas, plus another room in which families can meet, and the provision of furniture over and above that provided. It appears that the Government are now to decide what sort of furniture each room should have. The letter also refers to the number of care assistants under 18, and asks how such assistants are to be trained for national vocational qualification 2. No one aged under 21 is to be in charge, so how can such people be trained for the important NVQ 3, which can be obtained at the age of 19?
I should have thought that, when the Secretary of State sat next to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last June, joined-up government in regard to training would have been one of the things that we could expect; but here we have a whole sector under pressure. The lady writes further:
Government should not be able to suddenly change the regulations and send so many Private Businesses to the wall.
One of the problems is that those whom the Government consult tend to be those with a vested interest in seeing this sector develop into something like Trusthouse Forte. What will happen if all the little individual residential and nursing homes, with their funnily shaped rooms and, perhaps, not the right width of doorway, are forced to spend money—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are shouting "Wheelchairs". That may be appropriate in the case of new build, but some homes do not accommodate wheelchair users, and it is not reasonable to insist that they incur the capital expense involved in making changes on the chance that a particular person will need the facility.
We will end up—perhaps this is the Government's plan—not with privately owned residential and nursing homes, but with big Trust House Forte-style rooms where every piece of furniture is the same and every room is the same size, with the same wallpaper and the same carpet. I can think of no more sterile experience than that of people who must end their days in such an atmosphere. Institutions of that kind must be contrasted with some of the caring residential and nursing homes, catering for the individual, that my constituency—along with others, I am sure—contains.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the hon. Lady tell us when the regulations to which she has referred were
1072
introduced, and at whose behest? I understand that they were the product of the Conservative Government's processes.
People who live in homes are entitled to the best possible conditions. Second-rate accommodation of the kind that the hon. Lady supports is an insult to the elderly.
Mrs. Browning: No, it is not. The Government have consulted on the regulations; they are not inherited from the last Government. Moreover, a Bill is proceeding through the other place. When it comes to the House of Commons, I will go into more detail.
The lady writes:
We are at present registered for 25 Residents and have 2 double rooms, to accommodate the physical changes required we would have to reduce to 19 Residents. It is unlikely that our running costs would then be covered by the fees we are currently able to charge.
The Government have paid no attention, but I have raised the subject of nonsensical rules of this kind on the Floor of the House. There is the construction industry tax scheme, which involves the absurdity of people having to present themselves in all four corners of the country. We still have the dreaded climate change tax—I received a letter from someone who runs a nursery, who will be buying all the plants from Belgium this year—and, of course, there is the much-publicised IR35 legislation, which is sending many businesses abroad.
The Government's answer is to abolish their better regulation taskforce, and to set up a star chamber in the Cabinet Office. The first Labour Minister for the Cabinet Office said that there was a difference between deregulation and better regulation. If only that had been true. There has been no better regulation; there has been chaos ever since, given the way in which the Government have implemented legislation. They have implemented it late, and have not given businesses the lead time that they need just to read the literature.
It seems that, when the present Government make a mistake of this kind and businesses are clearly in difficulty, their answer is not to take practical action to relieve businesses, but to re-budget, give it a smart title and send it off to the "cutting edge of business" in the Cabinet Office, of all places.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Browning: I will, but for the last time.
Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend is perhaps unfair to the Secretary of State because, at a stroke last week, he halved the regulations on the utilities by abandoning half the Utilities Bill, which was supposed to be so important to consumers.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that the Secretary of State was listening to my hon. Friend because, last Wednesday, I tabled a named-day question asking the Secretary of State whether he was going to remove water and telecommunications from the Bill. Yesterday, I received a holding answer saying that I would receive an answer shortly. If he did not know five days after he had done it that that was what he had done, what hope is there that

1073
there will be any businesslike management in the Department of Trade and Industry? I hope that I shall get an accurate reply from him in short order.
The Government and the Secretary of State have learned the language of business, but they do not understand it; the regulations that they place on small businesses are testimony to that. The Conservative party will change that.
Mr. O'Neill: How?
Mrs. Browning: I am just about to tell the hon. Gentleman. When we come to office, we will set regulatory budgets. Every Secretary of State, after an independent audit, will be required over the lifetime of a Parliament to reduce the costs that the Department puts on business through regulation. Every year, that Secretary of State, unlike the present one, will stand at the Dispatch Box and account progress to the House: the right and proper place for such announcements.
We shall exempt small businesses from much regulation that the Government have put on them and have proper independent impact assessments before a Bill proceeds through the House, so that the consultation becomes a key part of the way in which a Bill is fashioned, we do listen to what business has to say and independent assessment plays its part in ensuring that we get it right. There will be no tsars or star chambers, just honest, common-sense policies that business supports from Departments where Ministers manage in a businesslike way.
7.42 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to foster an environment in which small business can flourish, with macro-economic stability, a 10 per cent. starting rate of corporation tax, a research and development tax credit, regulation introduced in ways that minimise burdens on business, and the creation of the Small Business Service through which for the first time there will be at the heart of Government an institution dedicated to representing the interest of, and improving the services to, small firms; congratulates the ongoing work being undertaken by the Better Regulation Task Force, chaired by Lord Haskins, in spearheading the Government's campaigning for better regulation; and contrasts this with the boom and bust policies of the previous administration, which led to 15 per cent. interest rates, double digit inflation and the collapse of thousands of small firms.
May I put the situation of small businesses in context? We have not been given a true picture of the strength of the small business sector. I regret that, but I can understand the reluctance of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to address the sector's success under this Government: it stands in stark contrast with the neglect that it suffered under 18 years of the Conservative Administration of which she was a member.
The hon. Lady will know, then, of the hardship and record level of insolvencies that were inflicted on the small business sector as a result of the three recessions about which she kindly reminded the House. She is right. There is an economic cycle. The Government have ensured for the first time that no recession has resulted from the economic cycle and the slowing down in economic growth.
1074
The Government of whom the hon. Lady was a member three times imposed a recession, as she kindly reminded the House, but, if we look at the facts and get away from the prejudice that we have heard from her this evening, we will see the true value that the Government have been able to bring to the small business sector. More than 1 million businesses have started up in the lifetime of the Government. On average, 8,000 more businesses have started up every quarter under the Labour Government than in the first half of the 1990s. That is the record. That is because of the economic climate that we have been able to engineer.
In the past two years, the overall number of business closures has been lower than at any other time in the whole of the past decade. There has been a net gain of 140,000 small firms since the middle of 1997. That is because, under the present Government, with the economic stability that we have been able to create, small businesses can be formed and can plan ahead with confidence.
That is why, on taking office, we took immediate action to provide independence to the Bank of England and to ensure that we did not repeat the cycle of boom and bust about which the hon. Lady has kindly reminded the House.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Byers: I shall in a minute.
It is worth reminding the House that, 10 years ago this week, interest rates went up to 15.5 per cent. Inflation was in double figures. [Interruption.] Conservative Front Benchers say, "Oh dear." The thousands and thousands of small businesses that went into insolvency because interest rates were at 15.5 per cent. will not like them saying that so cynically.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Byers: Jobs and businesses were lost as a result of the Conservative party engineering boom and bust.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate the hon. Gentleman standing when the Secretary of State is speaking.
Mr. Byers: I will give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in a second, but someone has already asked me to give way—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies).
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the main point of Mr. Chetwynd's letter was that he had miraculously lived through three Tory recessions? As he knows, I have started a number of successful small businesses. What small businesses want is stability and growth to plan ahead, with low interest rates, more employment and a prosperous Britain in an uncertain world. That is what we are delivering.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well: that is what we are delivering. I am grateful to him for

1075
pointing out, from his personal experience of running several small businesses—[Interruption.] He does not regret it. He knows the way in which small businesses operate.
There has been a net gain of 140,000 small firms since the middle of 1997, when the Government took office, as a result of the economic stability that we have been able to create.
Mr. Cash: When the right hon. Gentleman is going on about the thousands of jobs that were lost during that regrettable period up to 16 September 1992, does he accept that the reason for the loss was the exchange rate mechanism, which many of us fought against all the way down the line? The real reason why the present Government have a more beneficial economy is precisely that they are out of the exchange rate mechanism and not in economic and monetary union. Does he not accept that those two things run together?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has been a powerful advocate in the House for a particular position on Europe. Giving the Bank of England independence over the setting of the exchange rate in 1997 and getting public finances under control for the first time have laid the foundations for the economic stability that we are seeing.
I know that I will never convince the hon. Gentleman of the argument. He has a particular view. We talked about it for hours during the debates on the Maastricht treaty. Thankfully, we are not going back to those days—at least I hope not—but if he looks back at what we have been able to achieve since May 1997, he will acknowledge that one of the great foundations of that economic stability was laid by the politically difficult decisions that we took in the early days of office. They have been proved to be absolutely right, so we have created the economic stability in which businesses can start, succeed and grow and in which people can invest with confidence. That is the framework that we have been able to establish.
Because we were able to do that, there has been a dramatic increase in small businesses starting up. It is a tangible demonstration of our success that more and more people are deciding to start their own businesses. That is a far better test than anything that we hear from Conservative Members in relation to the success, or otherwise, of the Government's policy: the fact that, day in, day out, more and more people choose to start their own businesses. Small businesses are starting at a rate that we have not seen for generations.
That is because of Government policies, not because of anything that the Conservatives are doing. They will go on about the burden of regulation and so on, but, day in, day out, people start small businesses. Those people will make a clear distinction between the need to provide their employees with decent minimum standards in the workplace—there is broad support for that approach there—and the cost of administration, red tape and bureaucracy. The big mistake that Conservative Members always make is to confuse the two. They cannot distinguish between red tape and bureaucracy and providing decent standards for people in the workplace.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, six months ago, we debated on the Floor of the
1076
House regulations on employment agencies. Why did he introduce those regulations, which occupied the attention of the House for about 18 months, but subsequently do a complete U-turn on temporary-to-permanent employment fees and on abolishing—as he was asked to do initially—value added tax on certain services?
Mr. Byers: I know that Conservative Members find it difficult to understand that there are a Government and a Secretary of State who are prepared to listen. I hope that it will not affect the digestive system of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton if I say that I shall not apologise for the fact that I very carefully examined the regulations, realised that a very powerful case on temp-to-perm was made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), examined the regulations again, and said, "There is merit in the argument—so we'll change regulation of the matter." The whole point of consultation is to listen, and I have listened. I believed that the suggested approach was better, and we adopted it.
I also considered the value added tax issue. I said, "There is a better approach here. I have the agreement of my colleagues in the Treasury that we should not impose VAT", and we adopted that approach. Consequently, we have a far better provision, which has been applauded by the industry itself, which realizes
Mr. Bruce: There was no need to change the regulations in the first place.
Mr. Byers: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the industry itself is applauding our action—which stands in stark contrast to the 18 years of inaction by the previous, dogmatic Government, who listened to no one apart from themselves. That is the reality of the situation, and I make no apology for it.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that, given the debacle in the Department's handling of the Utilities Bill, the press are not complimentary to the Government? Rather, they are talking about a dog's dinner of a Government and are waiting to see the Secretary of State depart from the Department.
Mr. Byers: The phrase "dog's dinner" is being over-used in the debate. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton used it, in quoting Lord Haskins—who is chairman of the better regulation taskforce—on the working time directive. The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that the better regulation taskforce is not being abolished. I know that she will be celebrating that great news tonight. She said in her speech that it is to be abolished, but it is not.
Mrs. Browning: Star chamber.
Mr. Byers: The star chamber is quite different. It is a very powerful body at the heart of Government. There are no tsars or tsarinas, but there is a star chamber—presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Mrs. Browning: The tsarina.
Mr. Byers: I do not think that my right hon. Friend would like to be called a tsarina. There are many ways of

1077
describing her, but I do not think that that is one of them. The star chamber is working, and it is already doing some excellent work. We look forward, in the not-too-distant future, to announcing the product of its labours, which I hope will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
I was trying to provide the framework within which small businesses are able to prosper, and explain why so many small businesses have been created under this Government. There have been so many start-ups because of the economic stability that we have been able to create and the fact that we have been able to get interest rates down, inflation on target and public finances sorted out. Another reason is that we have introduced some of the lowest corporation tax rates ever. We have also introduced special tax rates for small businesses. We have created a situation in which a record number of small businesses are being established.
To encourage investment in new companies, the small business tax has been reduced to 20p in the pound, and we have introduced a new starting lop corporation tax rate for small companies. That will benefit 270,000 companies. We have also abolished advance corporation tax, thereby simplifying the tax system.
We also have to tackle the barriers that exist to enterprise flourishing in the United Kingdom. I accept that, currently, barriers stand in the way of many small businesses starting up and obtaining the finance that they need for success. Small businesses often have real problems and fail in their first three or four years because they have inadequate finance in their early days, when money has to be borrowed. In the early days, people over-extend themselves in credit and borrowing, then pay the price for it three or four years later. The Government therefore have to find ways of providing finance for small businesses to start up.
We have to recognise that one of the main issues concerning small businesses is the fact that some banks feel very reluctant to provide finance. The banking review that has been established by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with Don Cruickshank as chairman, is very carefully examining the ways in which banks provide support, particularly to small businesses. The review will be reporting in the next few weeks. However, we shall have to take action over and above the recommendations that may be in the Cruickshank report.
We have to review all sources of finance available to small firms. One issue that we have been examining and that demonstrates a clear lack of support is provision of finance up to £500,000. Small businesses find it very difficult to access that level of finance. It is particularly difficult for some hi-tech start-ups and for small businesses in certain parts of the country to gain such finance. There is a real regional disparity in the finance made available to small businesses.
Mr. Brian Cotter: Will the Minister consider encouraging mutual guarantee schemes as a way in which small businesses might combine together to provide self-financing? Such schemes have operated in many other countries, and there have been trials of them in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There have been trials in the United Kingdom, and we should learn from them. There are some very good
1078
examples of small businesses collaborating with each other. Although that did not happen before, small businesses are increasingly recognising that they can learn from each other, particularly on finance. I shall certainly draw such schemes to the attention of the Chancellor. I shall perhaps do so in the next few weeks, as he prepares, on 21 March, to unveil an undoubtedly hugely successful and popular Budget. That may be one of the issues that he will wish to address.
I was trying to identify the small business groups, such as those in the hi-tech sector, for which the market is not providing the financial support necessary for development. As I said, there are also regional disparities in access to finance. The third main group without sufficient financial support are small businesses in some of the United Kingdom's most deprived communities, where people who want to start businesses have huge difficulties in raising finance.
We have separate proposals to deal with the deficiencies affecting each of those groups—whether in the regions, hi-tech start-ups or business start-ups in deprived communities. In total, we have provided £180 million for an enterprise fund, within which we have targeted particularly those three groups.
There will be a hi-tech venture capital fund that will provide financial support to start-ups in the hi-tech sector. The United Kingdom—particularly United Kingdom pension funds—has been very bad in providing financial support to that sector. It is a bit of a condemnation that much of the investment for United Kingdom hi-tech companies is coming not from United Kingdom pension funds, but from the United States. We have to do something to encourage United Kingdom pension funds to invest in United Kingdom hi-tech companies.
We also have to do something about regional disparities. I am pleased that we have been able to establish, for the first time, a regional venture capital fund, which we hope to launch in the next few months and which will be able to offer finance to business start-ups in those regions which, perhaps historically, have not regarded the business start-up route as the way forward and the way of regenerating their local communities. The Phoenix fund, which we have established for deprived communities, is worth £30 million annually and will make a real difference. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may snort at the idea of a Phoenix fund; it may not be needed in Buckingham. However, it is needed in Barnsley, Bradford and many parts of the country where access to funds is simply not available at present. It will make a real difference to decent, hard-working people in deprived areas who want to start their own businesses, but cannot access finance at present.
Mr. John Bercow: I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State is not suggesting that there are no needy people in Buckingham, because there are. They need sound policies and Conservative representation. They do not have not the former, but they have the latter.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what further plans he has for sunset regulation? He dipped his toes in the water with the Electronic Communications Bill, which, I am pleased to say, was based on advice that I have proffered him for the past two years.
Mr. Byers: I am in danger of agreeing with yet another Conservative Member. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly

1079
says that he drew to my attention on several occasions the potential benefits that may come from sunset regulations. As I said to him at the time, they were worth investigating and we have done that. I am pleased that we shall be able to take a small step through provisions in the Electronic Communications Bill, but we can do more. However, that means breaking down a culture.
We are having an adult debate and, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said of her experience as a Minister, there is a culture in Whitehall that is inclined to regulate first, because that is a soft option. If there is a problem, it is easy to regulate. What we must do is create a culture which asks, "If there is a problem, why do we not consider alternative means, such as guidance on best practice, codes of conduct and so on?" They are often a better way of approaching such problems. I know that the hon. Lady has said in the Chamber that, during her time as Minister, the previous Government did not do enough.
Mrs. Browning rose—
Mr. Byers: Let me finish my point, because it is a serious one. There will be political point scoring about regulation and the burdens of regulation, and I understand why that is necessary. However, if we can raise the debate slightly above that, there is an issue of the culture of government which we all need to address. How can we ensure that we provide minimum standards for people in the workplace that businesses will accept? The debate on the minimum wage, for example, has been interesting because most employers now agree with the principle. I am delighted that the Conservative party now endorses the principle of the national minimum wage. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members do not endorse the principle. I am inclined to ask which of them do not agree with it, but I think that a majority of those present do not.
I am not altogether sure what the result would be if the five people on the Opposition Front Bench voted. I think I can spot one who is in favour of endorsing the national minimum wage, but I am not sure that the other four would. In fact, I can see that there is a four to one majority against the national minimum wage. That is interesting, and they clearly do not disagree with my analysis. However, we had better move on quickly.
The important issue is that, where there is a need to regulate—there will occasionally be such a need—it is done in a way that is as light-touch as possible. Figures from the British Chambers of Commerce that were cited by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton show that there is confusion in terms of what is being covered. I can understand people being critical of the administrative burden that arises, but the hon. Lady kindly read out the letter from Chris Humphries, in which he confirmed that the figure of just under £10 billion that the British Chambers of Commerce quoted included the cost of providing four weeks paid holiday entitlement.
If the hon. Lady wants to go on the record as saying that the Conservative party regards such costs as unacceptable, the implication of her argument is that four weeks' paid holiday, which is part of the working time directive, is something with which she disagrees. A clear distinction must be made between administration and red
1080
tape, which we should all be against, as opposed to the costs of providing entitlements for people in the workplace. The figures that she cited referred to the costs of providing four weeks' paid holiday entitlement, which comes in under the working time directive. There is a cost there, but I think that most businesses are prepared to bear it. It is a matter of regret that the British Chambers of Commerce has included that figure in its costings.
Mrs. Browning: Does the Secretary of State not understand why businesses have been placed under such pressure by the regulatory burdens that this Government have placed on them? They are under pressure because of the cumulative cost. It is not the number of regulations or any one regulation that has caused the problem. The cumulative cost has reached the point at which it impacts on the viability of businesses, and it is that cost that we intend to reduce. That is the difference between the Secretary of State's perspective and that of the Conservative party and small businesses. The right hon. Gentleman has come to the point where he has done so much cumulative damage to business that an individual regulation becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back, however worthy he may think it is.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady drew the House's attention to the detail provided by the British Chambers of Commerce. I pointed out that it includes in its figures the costs of providing four weeks entitlement for paid holiday. The implication of the hon. Lady's argument is that the Conservative party does not support that entitlement. People need to be aware of that.
The question is the balance that needs to be struck between providing minimum rights and entitlements to people in the workplace, which we support, and doing so in a way that is light-touch and does not create the over-regulation that can often result from doing that inappropriately. I should like to think that, in my time as Secretary of State, we have been able to change the regulations affecting the national minimum wage so that they are far more light-touch than they were when I came to office. We have taken steps to change record keeping in relation to the working time directive, That is far more friendly in terms of how it can be applied in practice without losing the entitlement for people not to have to work more than 48 hours a week if they do not wish to do so. That is the appropriate approach to take.
We have laid good foundations for small businesses as a result of the economic stability that we have created. At the beginning of April, we shall establish the Small Business Service which, for the first time at the very heart of government, will ensure that the small business sector has a voice and can argue for its interests. I am confident that the Budget on 21 March will be a Budget for enterprise and fairness. What has struck me in my conversations throughout the country with small businesses is that they are asking not for some form of special treatment, but for enterprise and fairness. That is exactly what the Government are delivering and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Ernie Ross: What message would my right hon. Friend send to the small business federation which is to meet tomorrow night in Tayside? Among its members are a number of sub-postmasters. Initially, they ran scare stories that sub-post offices were likely to close

1081
and they organised petitions. We dealt with those issues and we made it clear that the Government intend there to be choice even after 2003. They then switched the spotlight and now they allege that the administration of the working families tax credit is liable to threaten small businesses. What message would my right hon. Friend like to send to them?
Mr. Byers: The strong message that I can give is that we understand the concerns. That is why we are expanding the Inland Revenue's new enterprise support initiative, which will specifically help small businesses with payrolls so that they will not experience the sort of difficulties about which my hon. Friend, as well as postmasters and postmistresses, are concerned.
Let me remind the House of some facts. More than 1 million businesses have been started under this Government. That is the clearest demonstration of the fact that we are getting things right. However, there is no complacency. We will continue our efforts to reduce regulation and to cut red tape. I invite the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
8.9 pm
Mr. Brian Cotter: I welcome the debate, although a motion such as this comes rich from the Conservatives. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, their record on the matter was not brilliant. At their peak, interest rates were 15 per cent., and they were in double figures for four of the Conservative party's 18 years in office.
Liberal Democrats were pleased when the Government gave the Bank of England independence as a way forward for the economy, a policy which we had advocated for many years. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) now says that that is a good idea. I wonder whether his colleagues on the Front Bench agree with him. I am glad to see that they support that policy, although the minimum wage may be a different matter.
I ran my business throughout the time of the previous Government when there was a tremendous number of business failures. I believe that during the last five years of that Government one business went bust every three minutes of every working day. Coming from manufacturing industry, as I do, I also remember the way in which that Government concentrated on investment in City jobs. Valuable as they are, that was at the expense of manufacturing industry and the small business sector.
In their last three years, the previous Government introduced about 3,000 additional regulations each year. I give them credit for their deregulation initiative, but it was not particularly successful. The Deregulation Committee is not brilliantly successful now. During those years, the Conservatives introduced about 15 times as many regulations as they managed to get rid of through deregulation.
I join Conservative Members in their concern about the present situation facing small businesses. We are still waiting for the Government to fulfil the many promises that they have made. In particular, I welcome the concept of the Small Business Service. We have long needed a one-stop shop. Training and enterprise councils, business links and so on have proliferated. The Small Business
1082
Service is dedicated to reducing regulation from April and to concentrating on firms with up to 250 employees. It is important that that service should address the micro-businesses, something which the business links system failed to do.
I can attest to the way in which the administrative burden falls disproportionately on small companies, particularly when it comes to taking on an extra employee. Having just taken on an extra employee in my company, I know how discouraging it is. I need someone who can do a number of different jobs and I had to search hard to find such a person. Large companies have personnel departments to do such work, whereas I had to do the job with others in the company. Taking people on is a big cost to business. Everyone would accept that if every small business took on one additional employee we would have a real solution to the unemployment problem.
I reiterate what Conservative Members have said about the better regulation task force. We have not seen what we were looking for from that. It tried to do its job with insufficient resources, although I take my hat off to its chairman, who does an extremely good job. The different areas that it has chosen have been rather arbitrary. I hope that the Small Business Service will address the issue. In a debate on small businesses in January, it was announced that each Department would have a Minister responsible for regulation, and I should be interested to know whether that is now the case, and to have some sort of feedback.
Mr. Byers: I can confirm that in each Department a Minister has been appointed with specific responsibility to monitor the development of regulations within their Department and to report to the new Cabinet Committee.
Mr. Cotter: That is welcome news.
A key issue that I have raised before concerns regulatory impact assessments. Having served on a number of Standing Committees I have been struck by the poor quality of the information that those assessments contain. Moreover, I urge the Secretary of State, if he has not already done so, to ensure that they should come at an early stage. The Secretary of State talked about consultation, and an impact assessment should be available at that stage so that an appropriate assessment can be made. I would also urge him to implement an annual report to Parliament on the impact of such assessments on Bills and new regulations.
The Secretary of State sets up the Government to be conscious of small business issues, and one way of achieving that would be if civil servants and Ministers were aware of the work involved in running a small business. We have an interchange scheme whereby civil servants and others go into companies such as the Shells and BPs of this world. I urge the Secretary of State to consider the value to the small business sector if civil servants and others on that scheme worked in the smallest of businesses—the garage, pub or shop. Only a few days would be needed to recognise the enormous problems involved in running a small business.
One of the biggest problems in business is seeing regulation coming down the line. The way in which it pops up from nowhere at short notice and is dumped on business is a problem. A taxi driver came to my surgery recently wanting to take on a black taxi in Weston-super-Mare. As things stand at the moment, he could just

1083
about manage the investment, but he was worried about rumblings to the effect that in one, two or three years changes in regulations could affect him badly. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could take that issue on board.
I am glad to hear the Secretary of State welcome sunset regulation, which has been implemented in the Electronic Communications Bill. I hope that he will consider that as a way of ensuring that regulation is allowed to wither away if it is no longer appropriate.
Liberal Democrats have always proposed regional development agencies as a way forward, and we wait to see what the Government intend to do about them. I hope that there will be a means by which the Small Business Service can be relevant to local communities. When I intervened earlier, the Secretary of State accepted the regional guarantee scheme as a possible way forward. We want to see such local initiatives rather than the Government issuing diktats from the top.
Mr. Geraint Davies: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on regionally based venture capital funds? Does he agree that US venture capital funds are highly diversified, from corporate re-engineering to small and high-tech companies, and that we need to have such diversification to re-engineer British industry and take advantage of small business opportunities in the European market.
Mr. Cotter: That is an excellent point. More than that, we want the RDAs to have real money following them, not just a rejigging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.
I welcome the Secretary of State's point about flexibility of enforcement. We support the small business community being excluded to some extent from regulation, but it is important to have flexibility. Inspectors should have the sense not to march in on day one and say that all the doors have to be a certain width, even if it is clearly impractical to get that done by next week.
Apprenticeships are very important. This country has a tradition of apprenticeship schemes, and many of us would like them to return. My party has been considering the concerns that people have about builders and others not doing work to the right standard, and a lot of that comes from the lack of apprenticeship schemes. When traders try to have apprenticeships, they find that the burden of paperwork is too much, and they are put off.
We look to the Government to deliver on what they say. We are concerned that the Small Business Service will not meet local needs if it is not linked in locally. The regional development agency concept must be sharpened and made clearer. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the extra costs involved in hiring people because of regulation. I urge him to ensure that when the Small Business Service begins its work in April, it delivers what he has promised. We shall be watching. We have long believed in the RDAs' local one-stop shop delivery of services, and we look to the Secretary of State to deliver on his promises.
8.22 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: We debated this subject on 20 January in Westminster Hall. On that occasion, I believe that only three Conservatives attended the
1084
debate; there were certainly only three Conservative contributions. At the start of tonight's debate there was a sizeable Conservative presence, but we quickly got to the stage where there were more Conservatives on the Front Bench than on the Back Benches. It ill-behoves them to lecture us on the diminishing status of small business debates.
The most depressing factor about Conservative Members' contributions to small business debates has been the persistent complaining and whingeing about regulation. I suspect that they do that because they are unable to complain about inflation; about business rates, in any serious way; about industrial relations; or about the general level of economic activity.
If there is one thing that encourages people to set up small businesses, to take the risk and put their house on the line, it is the prospect of a stable environment in which to get the business up and running. That is what the Government have provided over the past two and a half years. That is what sickens Conservative Members. They told lies before the general election about our irresponsibility and how we would spend money on needless projects. They raised many questions about how we would handle the unions and establish decent pay and conditions while keeping inflation in check, but we have achieved all that.
Small businesses now express a sense of relief. Since just before Christmas, I have spent part of almost every Friday talking to small business people in my constituency. I can think of two firms in the construction industry, one of which is in building supply. There is a company that makes double glazing—and sells it, too, much to its embarrassment, as after politicians and, I think, journalists, double glazing salespeople are about the least popular group in the country.
People in those firms tell me that they are confident. That is in an area of Clackmannanshire where, because of the collapse in the textile industry, some large employers have gone to the wall and there is considerable disadvantage. The firms sense that people are willing to invest in their houses, so they feel that they are in a position to start employing new people.
I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) on many points on this subject—we have debated it before—but credit should be given to the variety of schemes that enable employers to take on extra labour. He spoke about apprenticeships. We tend to get hung up on old language, and I would rather we talked about progressive training programmes whereby people outwith the traditional skills areas can get formal qualifications to enable them either to go on to subsequent employment in the relevant area or simply to show that they are trained personnel, capable of undertaking work.
There is a plethora of schemes that are not too difficult to administer and which afford employers tremendous support in the early stages of a person's working career. To put an old-fashioned name to it, there is a subsidy to get people into work. Young people have been recruited by firms through schemes such as the new deal, and those firms have not said that that was the downside of regulation or an aspect of Government policy that they find reprehensible. Employers and small business people express quiet confidence and pride because they have been able to take on additional people with Government support.

1085
A woman in my constituency has started a catering operation running factory canteens and the like. In two and a half years, she has gone from no employees to more than 50. She said that she has no objection to paying the national minimum wage—she recognises that catering is a low-paid industry—but that she would like due notice of an increase.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the prudent way in which he has dealt with that issue. There was speculation about a rise, and now we have what most people would agree is a fair increase. It is just ahead of inflation and will probably be in line with it by October. People were given about six months' notice of the increase. It is important to small businesses to be able to make the appropriate calculations, feed them into their business plans and accommodate the change, rather than facing a drastic lurch into having to pay more.
Most of us would regard the national minimum wage as unreasonably low and would like people to be paid more, but we know that some fledgling businesses have serious cost problems, and those issues must be addressed. We all agree that workers are entitled to fairness and a decent crack of the whip, be it in their pay or, what is equally important, the number of weeks' holiday that they get. It will be interesting to learn whether the Opposition spokesman is able to tell us when he winds up whether the Tories will abandon the commitment to four weeks' paid holiday. Will they work through the EU regulations and find a way to renege on the undertaking of the Labour Government—in the unlikely event that the Conservatives ever again secure a majority in the House?
I know a small IT company that was woefully undercapitalised and going through a difficult spell. It found that by working with agencies such as 3Is, which works alongside Government but is not Government owned or controlled, it has been able to secure the continuing assistance that is necessary for its endeavours.
In the past couple of days, we have seen a dramatic shift of opinion on e-commerce. If one thing will assist an abundance of small businesses, it will be access to the net. When we last spoke on this subject, a Conservative Member was dubious about whether we would ever have free access to the net. Of course, access will never be completely free because a bill must be paid at some stage. There is no such thing as a free telephone call in any country under any circumstance. Payment is made through the rent, a standing charge or the metered call. However, as a consequence of the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—we recall the abuse that he received for intervening, even though he did so having consulted the Director General of Telecommunications and with his authority—he virtually shamed BT into providing free access to the net. First AltaVista announced its plans and then—surprise, surprise—along came BT. BT cannot be accused of the power of original thought, but it can be credited with speed of response.
I remember when the director general was to appear before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which I chair. Less than an hour before the Committee was due to meet, we received faxes informing us that BT intended to introduce an ultra-cheap scheme.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman knows that as soon as BT saw competition in the market, it was going to act. I
1086
wish it had been first, instead of just a follower. Did the hon. Gentleman notice that on the same day that Oftel said that it would not accept BT's first offer for internet access, the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce announced it to the world as the way ahead? She obviously gave way too quickly.
Mr. O'Neill: The point is that we have had the breakthrough we all wanted. The service providers are now confident that we have a climate in which the importance of electronic commerce is recognised. That is encouraging and important, because it will enable small businesses to expand their range of activities. It is clear that the experience of the United States is that cheap access has enabled small businesses to take advantage of the opportunity.
The Small Business Administration in the US, which is one of the great success stories of the American Government, has been the model for our Small Business Service. It is depressing that in the two speeches that I have heard the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) make on small businesses, she has not even deigned to mention the Small Business Service. She has never made any serious attempt to offer what should be the responsibility of the Opposition—an analysis of a Government proposal. She should tell us what parts of it she thinks are worth proceeding with and, before 1 April, what parts are dangerous and should not be included.
Mrs. Browning: When the news was given to the House, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not even stand at the Dispatch Box and present it; he just left it in the Vote Office, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment referred to it in a passing sentence. That is hardly an inspiration to treat the proposal as a major plank of Government policy.
Mr. O'Neill: That is not an excuse for abdicating your responsibilities as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. You have a duty—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember to use the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Lady has a duty to the country, if not to her party, to let us know what she thinks about these matters. She has had two opportunities in my company to argue the case and on neither occasion has she addressed the issue with any seriousness. All we have had is whingeing and moaning about the fact that on a particular date the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made a statement and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sat alongside him. That is the best that the Tories can give us on the Small Business Service, which is probably the best opportunity that small businesses will have had in the past 20 years.
We will have a consistent service across the country, and small businesses will be guaranteed a good service regardless of their location. The previous Government introduced business links, but they were not an overwhelming success. Provision was patchy and depended on relations with chambers of commerce and the local training and enterprise councils. Some of those impedimenta have now been removed.
Mrs. Browning rose—
Mr. O'Neill: I cannot give way because I wish to leave time for other hon. Members. Several of my hon. Friends wish to speak and it is important that as many people as possible have that opportunity.
Small businesses have a better chance now than they have had for many years, with the Small Business Service and the support that it will be able to offer. There will be an ally of small businesses at the heart of Government, which will be similar to the position enjoyed by Mrs. Alvarez of the Small Business Administration in the US, who sits in President Clinton's Cabinet.
The debate tonight is a welcome opportunity for the Government to make the position clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have disagreements from time to time about presentational matters, but the presentation is not in doubt on this issue. The core position is that we have a climate of opinion in this country that is capable of supporting more small businesses, and that becomes ever more evident with every new business that starts. They receive encouragement from the Government and the institutions that surround the Government. I support the amendment and I am happy to do so.
8.37 pm
Mr. John Bercow: In April 1997, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—then shadow Chancellor—declared in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto, which was entitled "Equipping Britain for the Future":
We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down.
Nineteen months later, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the House, apparently with a straight face, that
we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms.—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214]
Sadly, only a matter of weeks after the first statement, and fully 18 months before the second, the Government had begun the process of betrayal that has so far resulted in an additional 2,700 regulations impacting adversely on British business.
As recently as 20 January, Mr. Chris Humphries, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, put his view, on behalf of his members, fairly and squarely on the record. He said that
despite all its rhetoric, the reality is that government has dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness.
Frankly, if I had to choose between the sayings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the considered judgment of a person at the coal face—the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce—I would opt for the verdict of the latter every time. Mr. Humphries knows the facts, recognises the realities and hears the stories of his members who are struggling under the dramatic imposts of this Government. He knows the truth—that the burden of regulation is greater now than at any time in the history of the United Kingdom.
1088
In her sparkling opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) set out some of the sins, of commission and of omission, perpetrated by the Government since they came to office 34 months ago. There are several examples, and I shall illustrate some of them this evening.
The first example that springs to mind has to do with the Part-Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Their purpose is to give effect to the European directive on part-time working by 7 April. Conservative Members have two principal objections to the way in which the Government have proceeded. First, the consultation process has been a sham and a disgrace. We deserve an apology from the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, who is winding up the debate. She should apologise to all those people in business who have suffered as a result of that process.
The Government knew in April 1998 that they would implement the directive. They agreed to the directive, and intended to give it effect. However, in the intervening 21 months up to January this year, the Government chose to do nothing by way of consultation with the affected businesses in this country. Eventually, on 17 January, the Government issued their draft regulations for the purposes of incorporation of the directive in British law.
With a sniffy disdain unworthy of Government representatives, Ministers indicated that they expected that businesses might have some comments to make in response to the draft regulations, although it was not clear that the Government were inviting a full-scale consultation. Moreover—and this is a further indicator of the Government's frivolous approach to this partial consultation—Ministers said that all responses from businesses had to be received by 27 February.
That meant that businesses—and most of them were the small businesses for which a substantial proportion of part-time employees work—had 44 days in which to respond. That is risibly inadequate. If Ministers do not realise that, it is about time they did.
The Secretary of State made much of the fact that he had amended the regulations on the national minimum wage and those pertaining to the working time directive. In saying what he said, he was delivering an indirect and not very subtle attack on his predecessor, who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
We rightly castigated the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the feebly inadequate period of consultation that he provided in respect of the working time regulations. According to my calculation, however, the present Secretary of State has done even worse with regard to the consultation period on the part-time employee regulations. He has allowed only 44 days for it, which is worse than the most palpable of the sins committed by his predecessor.
There is no good reason for that carelessness, for which Ministers should apologise. They do not have to apologise to Conservative Members: I know that to do so would stick in the Minister's gullet, and I could not give a tinker's cuss for any apology made to us. However, she has an obligation to apologise to this country's small businesses. She should remember that 99.6 per cent. of companies in this country employ fewer than 100 people, yet they account for almost 50 per cent. of the private-sector work force and generate two fifths of the national output.

1089
Those business will be awaiting, with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat on their brows, an apology from the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce tonight. If it is forthcoming, I will thank her and say no more on the subject.
The second objectionable feature of the proposals is that, not for the first time, and doubtless not for the last, the Government have gold-plated a European directive. How have they done so? Ministers have decided that if businesses do not wish to apply exactly the same treatment to part-time employees as they confer upon their full-time equivalents, they shall be obliged, in the form of a written statement within 14 days of a request so to do, to justify a continuation of differential treatment. That is not in the directive. There is no such requirement. Nor is it a simple matter of a brief memo bashed out by someone in a company's personnel department. Such memorandums or notifications will constitute admissible evidence in the event of a case going to an industrial tribunal. They therefore acquire a legal significance which any company anxious to limit its costs would be foolish to ignore.
Once again, this hits small companies particularly hard. It is all right, perhaps, for large businesses with in-house legal departments; it is a relatively trivial matter for them to attend to this legal requirement. But for the small companies for which, as I emphasised, a large proportion of part-time employees work, it is a costly burden and they could well do without it.
Once again, I suspect that consideration of the need to avoid such burdensome regulation did not even penetrate the inner recesses of ministerial minds at the Department of Trade and Industry. It probably did not even occur to them. Well, it should have done and it should do in the future.
Those, I believe, are two cogent objections to the Government's proposals for part-time employees. There are other legitimate criticisms of Government policy on regulation. The first that occurs to me is in relation to the parental leave directive. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) observes from a sedentary position, it has a chequered history. The House should be aware, and the country should know, that there was no obligation to implement that directive. It was specifically the result of a bone-headed decision by the Government voluntarily to sign up to the European social chapter. If we had been in office, it would not have happened.
Appearing before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, chaired by the distinguished hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), on 4 November 1998, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, declined to accept the Confederation of British Industry estimate of the likely cost of the directive. Instead, he indicated that a cost to business of approximately £29 million a year was roughly accurate. I note that the figure has been creeping up since then. I believe that I am right in saying—although sometimes it is difficult to establish this for certain, because of the differences between what Ministers say on a Monday, a Wednesday and a Friday—that Ministers now estimate that implementing the directive will cost £42.3 million annually.
There are two points to be made. First, it was, frankly, shameful for the then Secretary of State—and he has not been disowned by his successor—to observe sniffily to
1090
me on 4 November 1998, in response to interrogation, that the cost was merely a tiny fraction of the total cost borne by businesses. That is both true and staggeringly irrelevant.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—I did not want to upset his customary flow. However, he has left the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry under-reported. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) was extremely unkind to Conservative Members for moaning about the Department of Trade and Industry. Does my hon. Friend agree, that the hon. Gentleman himself is an even better moaner, and is quite right to keep criticising the DTI for its total failure to do its business properly?
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and it has to be said that the hon. Member for Ochil has something of a Jekyll and Hyde quality. He is a very agreeable individual, but in political terms he has two faces. He has the face that is on display when he is chairing the Select Committee, on which occasions he demonstrates a remarkable independence of spirit. He is prepared to demonstrate his resolve to interrogate witnesses fiercely and to hold the Government to account, and he is not averse, from time to time, to insulting Ministers, if not about their personalities, at any rate about their policies.
When, however, the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber, possibly conscious of the imminence of a hostile pager message from the Government Chief Whip, he is converted to an altogether different specimen. Suddenly, the criticisms that he habitually volunteers in the Select Committee and in the media are subdued or removed, and instead we have what amounts almost to a panegyric of Government policy from him.
So far as the hon. Gentleman's inner contradictions are concerned, I cannot be held responsible. I hope that appropriate treatment will be made available to him. I am a compassionate individual, and I am willing to assist. If he would like a quiet word in one of the darker and more pleasant recesses of the Palace of Westminster about this innate contradiction in his thinking and practice, I would be happy to oblige.
Mr. O'Neill: I cannot resist the temptation to respond to the hon. Gentleman on one issue. We had similar exchanges when we were on the same Committee. He had a brief stay on that Committee before he was relegated to the Opposition Front Bench. In none of the reports that were both favourable to and, on occasion, critical of the Government did he find grounds to disagree with the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. In some respects, the Janus-like qualities that he is attributing to me are perhaps more a function of his own experience in front of the mirror.
Mr. Bercow: I think that there is a certain revisionist rewriting of history taking place. I always made my position and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends on these matters abundantly clear, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that point.
I said that there were two problems with the Government's position on the parental leave directive. The first was the rather silly comment by the former

1091
Secretary of State about its constituting only a tiny fraction of the costs borne by business, when what matters of course is the cumulative impact of all the regulation that the Government have foolishly foisted on the businesses of this country.
The second point is that there is no reason to believe that the Government's estimate is accurate in any event. A national opinion poll last year suggested that up to 15 per cent. of the relevant cohort—working parents with children under eight—might decide to take advantage of the directive and avail themselves of three months' unpaid leave. If they were to do so, and companies, believing that their services were indispensable, decided to recruit staff, perhaps to retain an important contract, and paid them, for the sake of argument, £10 an hour for a 40-hour week for 12 weeks, the cost would not be £42.3 million a year; it would be no less than £360 million a year.
We do not know precisely what the total cost will be, but we know that the Government have a habit of understating the pain and overstating the gain. There is no reason to believe that their behaviour on this occasion will be any different.
Another example of burdensome regulation from the Government is the working families tax credit. The Government have an unfortunate habit of celebrating the measure's apparent merits without acknowledging its drawbacks. I urge them to take account of the views of businesses, because they are petrified by the likely costs of operating the working families tax credit. We know that there is to be a recurring cost of £105 million a year; we know also that almost half that annual sum, £52 million, will be borne by small businesses that employ fewer than 100 people. That is a significant problem about which we have not heard anything from Ministers.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the effect on the cash flow of small businesses is even more damaging. They suddenly have to find money up front rather than paying taxes to a Government official a month or so after they have paid wages.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is invariably helpful and that intervention was no exception. There is certainly a problem with cash flow.
There is also the consideration that, for small businesses, costs incurred through regulation are proportionately much greater than they are for large. For the smallest firms, we are talking about a cost—calculated by the Inland Revenue among others—of over £288 per person per year, whereas for the largest businesses, with more than 5,000 employees, the cost is of the order of £5 per person per year. Nowhere in the honeyed words of Ministers—veritably the Dr. Panglosses of our age—do we hear anything about the downside that flows from those Government policies.
Yet another example is agriculture, which has been consistently downgraded and hit by an insensitive Government for nearly three years. The extensification premium on beef animals, for example, will require farmers to submit detailed forms up to six times a year in order to get their just entitlements.
Then there is the consideration of the Draft Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000, which have been handed down from Brussels and will effectively prevent farmers from
1092
feeding health-boosting vitamins or minerals to their herds, with the limited exception of compound feed. All that regulation is burdensome. The National Farmers Union says that there is no need for such regulation, but of course the Government have cow-towed, gone along with it, made no complaint and tried to put a brave face on it.
We were promised much and have been delivered little. The record of Ministers to date has been a litany of promises broken, trust betrayed and hopes destroyed. If the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is not aware of that important fact, it is about time she visited small businesses—not just for convenient photo opportunities, but to learn in detail from those in the know how they are suffering from the damaging regulatory policies of this anti-business Government.
Ms Linda Perham: I have thought about a couple of examples that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am sorry that he is not in favour of rights for working parents and low-income families—parental leave and the working families tax credit. I am very impressed by his grasp of figures and the way in which he does not use notes. Will he tell me the cost of the 3,000 regulations introduced by the previous Government for each of the past three years?
Mr. Bercow: The answer is very simply no. I do not have the square root of a clue off the top of my head, but I would be happy to engage in correspondence with the hon. Lady, if she would find that an enjoyable experience. I put it on record, just to cleanse the soul, that she, who, if I may say so, is a parliamentary virgin, was not in the previous Parliament, just as I was not.
I am not responsible for what happened under the previous Government. I accept that their record was mixed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made strenuous efforts on the subject of regulation. If the hon. Lady is asking me whether I believe that his record was one of unfettered perfection, the answer is no. My right hon. Friend is an estimable individual, but I am not responsible for his policy decisions and I am not going to be held responsible for them. I am concerned about what is happening now, and the fact that the regulatory burden is greater than ever. I am concerned that the Government have broken their promises and have no idea how to chart a better course.
I conclude—I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate—simply by saying this about the Government's record. There are three central problems for Ministers. The first is that there are six DTI Ministers in the House of Commons, and all of them have one thing in common. I appeal to the fertile minds on the Government Back Benches to discover their common characteristic. I shall tell the House what the right hon. Members for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), and the hon. Members for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) all have in common: they have never run a business. They have not the slightest experience of the private enterprise sector of our economy. That stands in stark contrast to the experience of the Opposition Front-Bench team, comprising my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who is a distinguished and successful business woman, and my

1093
hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who has an enviable business record. No Minister can compete with them, not least because none of these Ministers has ever run a business. The current team of Ministers has no feel for the issues.
The second problem is that, almost to a man or a woman, Department of Trade and Industry Ministers are fanatical European federasts. All of them believe in extensive European integration, they want to abolish the pound as soon as possible, they favour increased qualified majority voting, and they adhere to the European social model. They do not believe in the free enterprise, capitalist economy that has made this country great, developed living standards, created wealth and made Britain the success story that it has been for such a long time. Their hallmark is craven submission to every diktat from Brussels: diktats about the content of regulations; diktats about the period of consultation; diktats about the short notice of the requirement for implementation. In a shameful, risible performance, they prostrate themselves before the European Union and are not prepared to champion the legitimate commercial interests of United Kingdom plc.
The next problem with Ministers is that they have made no estimates of the costs of regulation and continue to refuse to do so. They have no ambition to deregulate. Above all, they simply do not understand the means by which to achieve such beneficial deregulation.
On a personal level, Department of Trade and Industry Ministers might be entirely convivial company, but as ministerial performers, they are hopeless—I use the word "hopeless" advisedly. They are a useless shower, they are totally complacent, they are failing to deliver, and they are letting business down. They should either get their act together and deliver for British business, or make way for my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench who assuredly can do so.
9.2 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I shall have to use notes but, as a consequence, most of my references will be reliable. I promise not to use the words "sniffy", "Euro-federast" or "risible". I can offer plain speaking from one who has worked in business, albeit one who has never run her own business. I have been extensively involved in business and I take a passionate interest in regulation. Those hon. Members who read parliamentary questions will know that I have asked more questions about that subject than about any other since becoming a Member of Parliament. The Opposition Members who usually participate in debates on small businesses are here, but it is sad that there are not more present—not just more Members on the Opposition Benches, but more Members on both sides of the House.
I shall confine my comments to the first part of the motion, which says:
That this House opposes the growing regulatory burdens that the Government has added to business costs.
I shall examine the authenticity of the claim and then refer to points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham when he presented his Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction) Bill to the House on 27 April 1999.
1094
Let us examine the record on the imposition of regulatory burdens. In 1995, the previous Administration introduced 21 Bills that had an impact on business. There followed a slight slump: only eight Bills were introduced in 1996 and five in early 1997. The present Administration introduced five such Bills in 1997, 13 in 1998 and 12 in 1999.
Those are interesting statistics but, like other statistics that we have heard this evening, they are meaningless unless they are set in context. Nevertheless, it is right to say that the amount of regulatory legislation introduced by the previous and the present Administration is roughly balanced.
So much for Bills. What about assessment?
Mr. Keith Darvill: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss the merits of the compliance cost assessments introduced by the previous Government?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am about to deal with that matter.
Under the previous Administration, and for a short time under the present Government, compliance cost assessments were the only vehicle available to assess the impact of Bills on business. Unfortunately, they were not carried out independently, as is currently being advocated, and there were no exemptions for small business in those assessments. Compliance cost assessments were required only when costs might be incurred by a business, and there were no assessment orders which evaluated how money could be saved. It was this Administration who introduced such assessment late in 1998.
The compliance cost assessment was initiated by the Conservative Government in 1993 and was considered to be central to the deregulation initiatives, which we would all applaud. The assessment introduced in 1993 was an assessment of likely cost to business of proposed legislation, and was used to help parliamentary consideration of regulatory proposals. It was considered a vital part of the consultation process and gave businesses the opportunity to respond to proposals. In their speeches this evening, Opposition Members have commended that approach.
I note with regret that, although CCAs were introduced in 1993, it was decided only in 1994 that they would also have to show the effect of proposed legislation on small business. Clearly, when the assessments were introduced in 1993, small business was not at the forefront of the present Opposition's mind.
Unfortunately, like many of the "buzz" initiatives introduced by the previous Administration, apart from the inclusion of small businesses after a period of reflection, the CCA did not develop. It remained a document that discussed cost. There was neither the opportunity nor the desire to review its effectiveness, even though, as we have heard, there was considerable concern about that.
Yesterday, in the Library, I picked up a typical CCA at random. It related to the Firework Safety Regulations 1996. The document is dominated by cost consideration, and there is some reference to consultation. Given what we have heard this evening from the Opposition,

1095
who extol the importance of consultation, I am disappointed to tell the House that that document states that
it has not been possible to undertake the usual consultation with industry on this occasion.
Much was promised but not always delivered, as a random sample proves.
The compliance cost assessment was a minimalist approach. It referred to cost, but not to the innate value of, or the need for, regulation. In 1998, after a year in government, the Cabinet Office reviewed the deregulation agenda and the regulation appraisals initiative of the previous Administration and concluded, in the words of the teacher's report, "Must try harder."
Deregulation, which had been made almost impossible because of the restraints of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, was subsumed by the far more onerous task undertaken by the Government—that of producing better business regulation. In 1998, the Government published "The Better Regulation Guide". For the first time, standard reports can be compared and contrasted.
If we are to have a meaningful debate, we must acknowledge that an attempt was made to understand the impact of regulation on business. However, no such attempt was made to ensure that reports from each Department were standardised. Any requests about costs, cumulative costs or impact have been impossible to tackle. The answer that the hon. Member for Buckingham suggested: "No, I can't tell you what the total cost would be" was valid. Even if he tried to find the answer today, he would fail because insufficient analytical rigour was exercised previously. That remains a problem. It is inordinately difficult to get the myriad Departments that have a significant impact on business to produce reports in a way that permits review and understanding of the total impact of any proposed legislation on business.
The compliance cost assessment has been swept aside and replaced by regulatory impact assessments. That is a step improvement, which requires not only the focus on cost that existed previously—we are building on previous measures—but a focus on benefits. Compliance cost assessments also refer to non-business costs, which had previously been ignored, and consider who would be affected by the Bill. More importantly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, they require over-zealous civil servants who are keen on increasing the legislative tally to consider non-regulatory approaches to legislation. They include best practice and codes of conduct, which might be sufficient to achieve the Government's objective while not placing direct, burdensome regulations on industry.
What regulatory impact assessments have been undertaken to date? No Bill that has a bearing on business comes before the House without an associated regulatory impact assessment. The RIAs are detailed and expansive and they are required to include non-regulatory alternatives. They also emphasise consultation.
Let us consider the great deregulation crusade that was supposed to follow the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. For anyone who worked in business, the title alone was a joy. However, what did it mean and what could it achieve? It could not deregulate any Act that had
1096
been passed before 1994. Furthermore, any orders made under the Act could not impose costs. That restraint means that little deregulation has happened since 1994.
We are committed to trying to deconstruct the house that Jack built on regulation that was not reviewed. We must consider how many orders have been successfully executed under the 1994 Act. I am sorry to say that great enabling legislation, which was designed to cut red tape, led to only 42 orders because it was so constraining. I hope that, during this Parliament, a better deregulation Act will be passed. I hope that it will build on the 1994 measure, extend its powers and enable the Administration to provide what we all support: effective reduction in some of the bureaucracy and red tape that business experiences. The 1994 Act has not enabled us to do that.
I have asked each Department to inform me about the orders they seek or might seek, because people have discussed potential regulation. The long and the short of it is that, with the best will in the world, only so many orders can be made under the 1994 Act.
I shall consider some of the pleadings—and what pleadings they were—of the hon. Member for Buckingham, who is a zealot in matters that relate to small businesses. I offer that as a compliment. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is keen to learn the cost of all new regulation. That is important. I do not have to encourage him to visit the Library, examine the regulatory impact assessments and find the information for himself.
The hon. Gentleman's second heart's desire is to discover whether the Government intend to reduce regulatory costs in the coming year. If he puts such a request before them he will find, like me, that they are very amenable and will respond to his correspondence. If he has no joy in the short term, perhaps he would like to consult me later and I shall let him have a copy of my response.
In respect of the hon. Gentleman's desire to remove gold plating of European Union directives—I think that there is a general consensus here—he will be pleased that the Government, by and large, tend to be objective and conciliatory. They are keen to achieve the best and adopt a belt-and-braces approach. We know that that can have a significant impact on small businesses. I hope that they will do their best to encourage civil servants to take a minimalist approach when introducing European legislation. Having spoken to the regulatory impact unit and the better regulation taskforce, I have been assured that they would like to deliver on that pledge.
I must offer a plug here: I am also pleased that the Government have at least tried to take the research assessment initiative to Europe. We have produced guidelines for European legislation, which must have an assessment attached to it before it is considered here. Unfortunately, we have not made the progress with our European partners that we would have wished to make because the initiative has not been adopted universally, but everybody present would want that to happen. However, discussions are on-going. The hon. Gentleman is also keen for six-monthly reports reflecting the progress of deregulation to be made. Those may come from the Cabinet Office in due course.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have done a substantial amount of talking during the debate, but we have yet truly to deliver. That is not through want of trying. I believe that we do not have the enabling

1097
legislation that we need to dismantle some of the past. However, I also believe that we have put in place suitable structures to evaluate what we are doing now. As hon. Members have said, they are not perfect, but we are administering a rapidly growing nation. Small businesses are proliferating, for which we are all grateful, but they present constant consultation problems. Getting it right at any time and achieving perfection is almost an ambition to which mere mortals can never aspire. That said, I welcome the Government amendment and shall not hesitate to support it.
9.18 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to be given time to speak on this important subject—[Interruption.] I was about to say that we have cleared the Gallery, although we are not supposed to mention it, but I am being told that I am wrong. People entered suddenly as soon as I got to my feet and I am glad to see them.
In some ways, the Government are doing well for small businesses—they have turned a large number of this country's big businesses into small ones. We notice in today's FTSE that a number of solid companies dealing with British industry and commerce have been replaced by candy-floss companies. That is the Government's hallmark: they are all spin and no delivery, and the candy-floss companies' lack of profitability represents the lack of delivery from the Labour party.
May I declare my interests? I am the chairman of Ian Bruce Associates Ltd., which is my own small company. It does not pay me anything. I advise the Telecommunications Managers Association and a firm of expert witnesses, Trevor Gilbert and Associates, which has employment agency and employment business interests.
Members of the House are small business people in some ways, as we all have thousands of constituents who want us to deliver for them. We understand some of the stresses and strains, but not all of them. However good or bad a job we do, at the end of the month we get a salary cheque. We know exactly what our expenses are, and we do not have to worry about the Government upsetting what we are doing. They always give us more money, because they want their Back Benchers to vote for them. We are in a privileged position.
I shall briefly run through some areas for which the Government are responsible. We can exchange comments about what happened in the 18 years of Conservative Government and spend the whole time looking backwards, but we should examine what the Government are currently doing.
I am surprised that many people do not understand IR35, which targets a small group of entrepreneurial business men. The limited company rules affect everyone, from the greengrocer to the garage proprietor, but that group will be treated in a special way. They get large salaries on which they pay large amounts of tax, but because there is a way of avoiding paying some of the national insurance moneys, the Government feel that they have to take action. Those people are paying enormous amounts of tax, and they feel insulted when the Government say that they are trying to avoid paying taxes. The way to avoid paying taxes is to put money into the business and invest for growth. That will provide the type of businesses that we need.
1098
The Secretary of State seemed a little unhappy when I congratulated him on doing a complete U-turn on employment agencies. I should have said how pleased the agencies were. Employment agencies are pleased. They are a bit like hostages who are held in a darkened room with a knife to their throats and told that their businesses will be taken away from them. When the knife is removed, and the Government say "We ain't going to do that any more", they rush round saying "What a nice kidnapper. What a nice terrorist." They are all smiling because their businesses are not going to be destroyed. Why did the Government leave them in that position for 18 months?
I have been a strong critic of the new deal, because micro-companies could have put the long-term unemployed back to work, but they will not go through the bureaucracy that is necessary to set up the training schemes for individuals. The Government have lost sight of that. Please will the Government consider that issue sensibly?
A group of people want to take over the sports centre in my constituency which the Ministry of Defence has left empty for the past year or so. It would provide swimming and other sports facilities. I have been waiting 242 days for an answer from the Government in response to a letter from one of those people, who has been trying to find out how they can take it over. A big company came along and wanted to take over the facilities. It promised that it would do things for the community, and although it came late, the Government still gave permission, because they love large organisations, not small companies.
It is important to understand what happens to an employer who suddenly has to administer the working families tax credit, rather than his employees receiving family credit. Small businesses tend to have lower-paid workers, and administering the system gives them cash-flow problems. They will be hit hard, and it could put them out of business.
The Government are missing the point about Post Office businesses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who was Secretary of State for Social Security, came from the Department of Trade and Industry realising that post offices would be closed down if the Department of Social Security decided to use automated credit transfer without introducing a measure to prevent post offices from going out of business. The Government do not understand that.
We have not mentioned local authorities. There is a Lib-Lab pact in my area, and the authority holds up businesses when they come along with a simple request. Sometimes it goes overboard. It grants permissions to larger businesses, but if a taxi driver wants to use his mobile phone in his taxi, it suddenly decides that it will change the rules for taxis and private hire cars to stop people for having dogs in their cabs. It will do anything to prevent people from making a few pennies.
We are currently considering the Utilities Bill, which I am afraid is beginning to become the futilities Bill. In that legislation the Government have halved regulation at a stroke, but they have threatened all the industries concerned with worse regulation.
There is very little time this evening. I am sorry that I cannot make the speech that I intended to make; I shall end by pleading with the Minister to think carefully before she acts. I am sure that she wants to remain Minister for Small Business, rather than Minister for only a small number of businesses.
9.25 pm
Dr. George Turner: The majority of my constituents, like those of most Members, are employed in small or medium-sized businesses. We should put aside the party rhetoric that we expect in this place, and try to recognise the existence of a common wish—a core of intent—to seek improvement.
The Government should be congratulated on their general economic management. If economic management is wrong, the problems of regulation will be tiny in comparison. They should also be congratulated on the Competition Act 1998, which has not been mentioned this evening. Only today, I met representatives of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, who told me that, for the first time, they as small businesses were being enabled to plead their case that big companies were using anti-competitive measures against them. I think that the legislation will help many small businesses.
On other occasions, I have identified a common fault exhibited by the House and by Governments of all political colours. When something is wrong, there is a feeling that the law or the regulation must be changed. I believe that Governments need better management techniques. If companies continually tried to change their procedures by issuing new rule books, they would not survive. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) also made that point, to which I believe the Government are, in fact, paying attention.
Ministers should also be aware that we need to change the culture in the civil service and in Government agencies, so that we do not administer the law as rule-bound bureaucrats. Let me cite the case of one of my constituents, who is a small business man—a hairdresser. I do so because his problem began under the last Government, and has continued under the present one. Mr. Tice found, to his surprise, that his company had been struck off. He believed at the time that there had been maladministration at Companies House, and that he had not been given the necessary warnings by registered post or some such method. He is convinced to this day that he never received those warnings. There was a full and lengthy investigation by the parliamentary ombudsman, who could not find the case proven for maladministration. My predecessor began work on the case; I had to pass the bad news to Mr. Tice.
I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs about Mr. Tice's case. Apparently, under the existing regulations, if he wants to reinstate the company that has been struck off, he must pay late filing fees for his accounts for the years during which he fought to reinstate it. I am certain that the law has been administered, but I do not think that that is good management, and I do not think it looks good when Government cannot use some discretion and say, "Here is a small business man who is an exceptional case. We will waive the fees." All Governments need to be more careful about the way in which they administer the law.
Another point has not really been raised this evening, although I understand why Ministers have not yet mentioned it. The agenda for opposition on Europe is a false agenda. The real agenda for the Government must be reform. I had the pleasure of being part of the all-party group on small business delegation that went to Brussels
1100
recently; I am pleased to see its chairman, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), in the Chamber. We talked to representatives of small businesses Europe-wide. The consensus was—indeed, it has fertile ground in the Commission—that there is a need for reform of Europe: Europe needs to be more people-friendly and more small-business friendly.
I have heard much said in private about the intention, but I hope that the Minister can give us a reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that we deal with that agenda. It is not about whether we should be in or out, but about ensuring that Europe actually works.
I hope that, in reacting to Opposition attacks, Ministers will recognise that many Labour Members know that the strength and health of small businesses will help our economy to grow and to continue to deliver the prosperity that all our constituencies need. At the same time, increasingly, I find that small businesses recognise that we need family-friendly policies, so let us not give those up, but let us also ensure that we take the agenda forward and reduce the burden on small businesses.
9.31 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser: There is a lot to be said about the detail of Government policy. I am afraid that there is not much time to make all the points, so I shall stick to a few.
The Secretary of State refused to recognise the entrepreneurial spirit that was created in the 1980s by the last Conservative Government, from whom his right hon. and hon. Friends have much benefited, particularly the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who, I am afraid to say, is not in the Chamber.
One point was made earlier about the British Chambers of Commerce. It has made a substantial contribution in highlighting the expenses that regulations have imposed on business, amounting to about £10 billion. The burdens barometer that it has published makes interesting reading.
I am particularly concerned about the increasing payroll burden. One area is the cost of compliance. It is highly regressive against small employers, in that the "bottom" 30 per cent. shoulder 75 per cent. of the compliance costs.
Small businesses have become unpaid tax collectors, administering the working families tax credit, student loans and stakeholder pensions, although I accept that the smallest employers have been exempted from the latter. The Government have already imposed a huge raft of burdens on small businesses through central policy planks that are highly unlikely to be repealed.
We must remember that the first year of a new business is the most important and difficult. If the business has an accumulation of regulation to apply, it will be a lot less effective in achieving its initial goals. It can be crippling at a time when the company should be spending time building itself up.
The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) talked about analysis of Government regulation. Key new regulations on business have been introduced by the Labour Government through "Fairness at Work", which includes statutory trade union regulation and changes to dismissal; and the European Union social chapter, which includes parental leave and the working time directive, as my

1101
hon. Friends have so well articulated. That particularly affects areas such as the one that I represent, given that it relies so much on the tourism industry.
The "Making Work Pay" provisions include minimum wage administration and the working families tax credit. The environmental burdens include the climate change levy and the fuel escalator. There are other burdens, including administration of quarterly payments of corporation tax and, dare I say it, the ubiquitous IR35.
The area of social chapter regulation that concerns me was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): the parental leave directive. We must remember that the costs of applying that will arise in three areas: arranging cover for people while on leave; obviously, additional administration; and defending unsuccessful applications to employment tribunals.
My hon. Friends have already pointed out some of the problems with the working families tax credit, but it must be said that business groups have focused their sternest criticism on the administrative burden that will result from companies being asked, effectively, to administer the welfare state. That cannot be good.
The Federation of Small Businesses has criticised the Government for failing to advise benefit claimants that they do not necessarily have to receive the working families tax credit in their pay packet. As the Government have failed to make that clear, the FSB itself is informing employees by sending leaflets to its 150,000 members, advising them of the option and by posting details on its website. It should not have to do that—the Government should be responsible for it.
The part-time workers directive is the latest burden introduced in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the Government signing the social chapter. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, under the Government's proposal for implementation of the European Union part-time workers directive, United Kingdom businesses will face increasing legal costs. I read much of the material that the British Chambers of Commerce publishes, simply because it gleans much information from those who are out there in the business world—unlike the Ministers mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who do not have that experience.
Another problem that will arise if part-time and full-time workers have the same rights is the way in which company pensions are allocated.
One of the biggest criticisms of the part-time work regulations, besides the regulations themselves, is the manner of the consultation on them. The Government have consistently been criticised for the way in which they have conducted consultation on important regulations, allowing little time for scrutiny and business preparation.
The burdens on business introduced by the Government have a profound effect. Let us not forget that small business was the backbone of the 1980s and 1990s economic success that was led by the previous Government. This Government must ensure that there is a reduced regulatory burden on small businesses.
A more entrepreneurial spirit is the order of the day. Cumulative regulation stifles business, and it has a disproportionate effect on small businesses at a time when they can least afford to apply them.
9.37 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: Much has been made by Opposition Members of a lack of experience in the Department of Trade and Industry in running a small business. I ran a small business for many years before being elected to the House. Should such experience become a requirement in the job description for future Ministers, I am available.
I should like to mention quickly a small business in my constituency, Groot and Hartman, which is working double shifts to cope with demand for its product. That is quite typical of what is happening in my constituency—all small businesses are doing exceptionally well.
Small businesses require three things: stability, low inflation and low interest rates. The Government are delivering all three of those, with continuity. All small business people will, of course, say that they want no regulation at all—not one bit of it—which, as we know, and as they accept, is an impossibility. They certainly want less regulation.
The week before last, I was in Brussels, with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Our counterparts from other European Parliaments said that the United Kingdom is far ahead of them in deregulating small business. There was no question but that they were envious of the action that we have taken on the issue. That is not to say that we have it right, but we are getting it better.
We want stability, and we want continuity. Above all, our small businesses want a trained and enthusiastic work force and less regulation. We are doing that very well, and we are moving in the right direction. I shall be supporting the Government's amendment.
9.38 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: We have had a very lively debate in the three hours allotted to us today. It is difficult, however, to add to the scope and detail of the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who, with her own experience of running a business, brings to the debate the detail and knowledge that Labour Members lack. She lamented the fact that the debate on small business has been downgraded by the Government and put into the Westminster Hall annexe. It has taken Conservative Members to bring it back to the main Chamber of the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend's main message was that people who run a small business are increasingly saying to the Government, "Get off our back." Indeed, my hon. Friend quoted a business man who said that the Government are showing an unforgivable lack of understanding of what it takes to employ someone. I shall address that issue in a moment. We see that interference extended further to the likes of nursing homes, with the absurdity of instructions to widen doorways by 1.5 in. When the Conservatives are in government, we shall have a full audit of regulations with a view to ensuring that there are fewer of them.
In sad contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the Secretary of State appeared disdainful of the problems caused by over-regulation. He simply does not understand what it takes for a small company to grow. In his policy, we see the absurdity of his making it hard for business to take risks, then setting up regional venture funds to tackle the problems that his Government have exacerbated.

1103
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) made a pertinent point when he said that there are increasing disincentives to taking on apprentices. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), as the House heard, takes a slightly inconsistent approach to the topic. We all welcome his robust comments in the reports of the Select Committee, which he oversees. However, as if to atone for being so critical, he takes a different attitude in debates such as these. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the hon. Gentleman seems to have something of a Jekyll and Hyde character, taking the opposite view in these debates from that which he takes when he chairs the Select Committee, as he does so well. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a remarkable parliamentary contribution, characterised by his usual dynamism, authority and forensic and analytical skill.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) lamented the fact that it has not always proved easy for central Government to estimate the costs of regulation. That may be so, but the Government should appreciate the fact that there is another litmus test: if in doubt, they should just go and speak to those running small businesses, who will tell them whether the regulations are punitive—as they feel increasingly strongly they are.
We also had very helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser)—a sort of Dorset double—and from the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).
However, perhaps the tone of the debate was set by a recent document from the Forum of Private Business. On the front page, it says that employment regulations are a top priority for action. Later, it adds:
There is evidence that firms are facing extra costs from a range of increasing burdens, mainly in the form of employment regulation … There are also pressures on sectors, such as the construction industry tax scheme, regulation of care homes … and security companies.
Many sectors of small business activity are feeling the strain of the Government's intervention. Many references have been made to the document produced by the British Chambers of Commerce, which puts the cost of the burdens on its businesses at something approaching £10 billion. That is dwarfed by the calculation on the next page in which the BCC says that the stealth taxes affecting its sector equate to something approaching 32 billion dollars, which is another cost that it, like other areas of business, has to face. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dollars?"] I meant pounds. Having been so long in international trade, which is something that Labour Members do not understand, I occasionally make a slip and take an international rather than a parochial view.
In taking such an international view, I note that, despite many weeks and months of campaigning by Conservative Members—and despite increasing evidence of the detrimental effects of the Government's policy—the Government still refuse to appreciate the bad decision that they have taken in adopting IR35. Even last night—and in this morning's debate in the Westminster Hall annexe about the internet—it became increasingly clear that their approach to IR35 will drive people out of this country.
1104
I have here one of many hundreds, if not thousands, of letters from a person in such a predicament, who writes:
It makes little difference to me. I will be long gone by the time the damage has been done by the idiotic Government.
When will Ministers wake up to the fact that, at a time when they are attempting to promote the internet revolution, their own policy is destroying this country's position and chucking out of business, or out of the country altogether, those at the leading edge of the revolution that we wish to encourage?
When will the Government appreciate that, whenever they take a decision to collect more money or impose a directive, they are, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said, increasing the payroll burden on small businesses, which they cannot afford? They are being asked to fulfil tasks for Government as unpaid tax collectors, and often to do so with little notice, which throws their business into chaos and causes them to set aside the main purpose of their commercial activity in order to do the Government's work for them.
The Government must not only now make it their policy to put less of a burden on small businesses, but must ensure that, when they do increase that burden, because they have not listened, they at least give businesses sufficient notice so that they can organise their affairs and tackle their main priority before doing the Government's work for them.
I have a very few minutes to say the many things that I would like to say in this rich area of policy and, at the moment, of complaint. Perhaps at the root of what the Minister should appreciate—and the Secretary of State clearly failed to appreciate—is that what matters to a small business is the marginal cost of employing someone. It is that marginal decision which leads a company, at the beginning of its life, to take on that one extra person—and then, one hopes, another—that allows it to grow from a little acorn into the big oak that it needs to be if it is to appear in the FTSE 100.
The Government are increasing that marginal cost of employment, so that the burden of taking on a person is becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses which have to count their pennies, and which see one extra person on their payroll as an important element of all their costs and budget.
We are also seeing the continuing gold plating of directives. When will the Secretary of State appreciate that a new EU directive is not an instruction to shape a law according to an exact form of words, but merely a requirement for this Parliament to shape its law according to the parameters laid down, in words that we in this House choose and understand? Increasingly, those directives impose more burdens on our businesses—and comparatively greater burdens than those placed on many of our EU counterparts. That not only puts small businesses at a competitive disadvantage but leaves them facing obligations that they need not face.
Small shops and community post offices are under threat, and fuel taxes are imposed on companies such as garden centres, putting those businesses in jeopardy. It is time for the Government to leave small businesses alone. Let them be. Let them grow. The Government should stop paying lip service to that when in fact they are all mouth and no delivery. Let us leave small businesses alone, and relieve them of the burdens being imposed on them by the Government.
9.49 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate—the fourth on small businesses since we were elected. We have heard some excellent speeches this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) rightly referred to the importance to small businesses of a favourable economic environment—the environment that we have created.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), in a most thoughtful analysis, spelled out how inadequate were the compliance cost assessments from the previous Government and how important it is to enact new regulatory reform legislation to strip out some of the old and unnecessary red tape.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made the important point that we need to promote economic reform in the European Union to create a climate that is favourable for the entrepreneur and for small businesses. I am happy to reassure him that we have indeed placed that issue on the agenda for the forthcoming Lisbon summit.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), in a most effective job application, stressed again the need for small businesses, in particular, to have a stable macro-economic climate.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and several other Conservative Members raised specific issues concerning regulation. The hon. Gentleman spoke about IR35, which we have debated extensively in the Chamber and elsewhere. He may not think that there is a tax loophole, but I suggest that he reads at least one of the computing journals which notoriously advised information technology contractors last year to pay themselves a salary of no more than just over £4,000 a year and to draw all the rest of their very substantial fees by way of dividends, thus ensuring that they paid neither income tax nor national insurance contributions.
The IR35 reforms are about a fair tax system that treats employees and the self-employed fairly. The Inland Revenue is working very closely with industry to ensure that there is proper understanding of the self-employment rules. IR35 will have no effect whatever on those who are indeed self-employed, and it will not prohibit in any way the use of personal service companies, but it will remove a tax loophole that clearly distorts the choice between employment and self-employment and leaves employees on modest salaries paying more national insurance contributions than those who are using personal service companies to avoid fair tax responsibilities.
Several Conservative Members spoke about the working families tax credit. Perhaps I can remind them that even in the worst-case scenario—that of a small employer with an employee entitled to the credit, who is doing his own payroll with a manual system—the additional compliance work amounts to about six minutes a week at a cost of about 70p: not, I think, an excessive burden on any small business, especially when the credit is a central part of our strategy to ensure that work pays and to help people to move from dependence on benefits to independence as they earn a living for themselves and their families.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) repeated the accusation that we have failed to explain to people claiming the working families tax
1106
credit that they have a choice about how it is paid. That is simply not true. The application form makes it quite clear that before an application is made people need to consider who is to receive the payment: the person at work or a partner at home.
We start from a simple principle: wealth is created not by Government but by business. Our responsibility is to create the conditions in which business can succeed. One might not have thought so to listen to Conservative Members' whingeing, but British businesses are indeed succeeding.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, more than 1 million new businesses have started since the general election. More businesses registered for VAT than in the previous five years. We have seen fewer businesses closing than at any time in the past 10 years. Since the Government were elected, we have had 700,000 more people in work than ever before. More people are now in work than ever were under the Conservative Government, most of them in small and medium-sized businesses.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While the Minister is crowing about how many new businesses have started up, could she tell us what are the costs of the new burdens that the Government have imposed on those businesses?
Ms Hewitt: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained with great care, most of the figures that are bandied around by Opposition Members, and, I am afraid to say, most recently by the British Chambers of Commerce, simply ignore the changes that we have made to the administrative costs—real red tape and compliance costs. They complain about the costs of paying employees fair wages and ensuring that they have paid holidays for the first time.
Most businesses welcome the fact that at last they have a Government who have set fair standards for all employees. Every good business knows that if it wants to get the best people—and it is having good people that every business depends on for its success—it has to treat them properly. Good businesses do not want to go on being undercut by cowboy businesses that exploit their employees and very often break other regulations as well.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister will know that the British Chambers of Commerce has estimated that every small business has had £5,000 added to its costs by regulations imposed by the Government. Does she agree with that figure and, if not, will she give us the real figure?
Ms Hewitt: As I have pointed out on other occasions in the Chamber, the British Chambers of Commerce made the unfortunate mistake of taking early estimates of compliance costs before they were changed as we simplified the administrative procedures. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example. We amended the draft national minimum wage regulations to reduce the record-keeping requirements. We did that after listening to businesses and learning from them. By doing that, we reduced the costs to employers by more than £100 million a year. We amended the working time regulations, again to reduce record-keeping requirements, which cut compliance costs by approximately £13 million.
It was also this Government who acted on an important recommendation from the previous Government's deregulation taskforce back in 1995 to merge the Inland

1107
Revenue and the Contributions Agency, so that employers no longer had to deal with two different agencies and report to two different Departments. That was a recommendation that the previous Government had, but never acted upon. [Interruption.] The fact is that businesses in this country—[Interruption.] As some Opposition Members know, I have been speaking in several debates elsewhere this evening, and I apologise for the fact that I seem almost completely to have lost my voice. Happily, I have not lost my conviction. Businesses in this country are doing exceptionally well, in striking contrast to the bankruptcies that took place under the Conservative Government.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 309.

Division No. 98]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Fallon, Michael

Allan, Richard

Fearn, Ronnie

Amess, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Don (Bath)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Fox, Dr Liam

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fraser, Christopher

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gale, Roger

Baker, Norman

Garnier, Edward

Baldry, Tony

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Ballard, Jackie

Gibb, Nick

Beggs, Roy

Gill, Christopher

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gray, James

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Green, Damian

Bercow, John

Greenway, John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Grieve, Dominic

Blunt, Crispin

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Boswell, Tim

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Hammond, Philip

Brady, Graham

Hancock, Mike

Brake, Tom

Hawkins, Nick

Brazier, Julian

Hayes, John

Breed, Colin

Heald, Oliver

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Burnett, John

Horam, John

Burns, Simon

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Butterfill, John

Hunter, Andrew

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Jenkin, Bernard

Cash, William

Key, Robert

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chope, Christopher

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Clappison, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lansley, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Collins, Tim

Letwin, Oliver

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cotter, Brian

Lidington, David

Cran, James

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Loughton, Tim

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Luff, Peter

Day, Stephen

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Duncan, Alan

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Duncan Smith, Iain

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Evans, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Faber, David

Malins, Humfrey

Fabricant, Michael

Maples, John

1108

Mates, Michael

Spring, Richard

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Streeter, Gary

May, Mrs Theresa

Stunell, Andrew

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Swayne, Desmond

Moore, Michael

Syms, Robert

Nicholls, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Norman, Archie

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Ottaway, Richard

Townend, John

Paice, James

Trend, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Tyler, Paul

Pickles, Eric

Tyrie, Andrew

Prior, David

Viggers, Peter

Randall, John

Walter, Robert

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Waterson, Nigel

Rendel, David

Webb, Steve

Robathan, Andrew

Wells, Bowen

Robertson, Laurence

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Whittingdale, John

Ruffley, David

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wilkinson, John

St Aubyn, Nick

Willis, Phil

Sanders, Adrian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Shepherd, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

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

Soames, Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Mr. Keith Simpson and

Spicer, Sir Michael

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Alexander, Douglas

Caplin, Ivor

Allen, Graham

Casale, Roger

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cawsey, Ian

Ashton, Joe

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Chaytor, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Clapham, Michael

Austin, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clelland, David

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clwyd, Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bennett, Andrew F

Cohen, Harry

Benton, Joe

Colman, Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

Connarty, Michael

Berry, Roger

Cooper, Yvette

Best, Harold

Corbett, Robin

Betts, Clive

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blackman, Liz

Corston, Jean

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cousins, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Cranston, Ross

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Crausby, David

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cummings, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bradshaw, Ben

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Darvill, Keith

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Davidson, Ian

Browne, Desmond

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Burden, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Burgon, Colin

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dawson, Hilton

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dean, Mrs Janet

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dobbin, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Dowd, Jim

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Drew, David

1109

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Efford, Clive

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Laxton, Bob

Ennis, Jeff

Lepper, David

Etherington, Bill

Leslie, Christopher

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Levitt, Tom

Fisher, Mark

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Flint, Caroline

Linton, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Love, Andrew

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foulkes, George

McCabe, Steve

Fyfe, Maria

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Galloway, George

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Gardiner, Barry

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gerrard, Neil

Macdonald, Calum

Gibson, Dr Ian

McDonnell, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McFall, John

Godsiff, Roger

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Goggins, Paul

McIsaac, Shona

Golding, Mrs Llin

McNamara, Kevin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McNulty, Tony

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McWalter, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

McWilliam, John

Grogan, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gunnell, John

Mallaber, Judy

Hain, Peter

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hanson, David

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Martlew, Eric

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Maxton, John

Healey, John

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Meale, Alan

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Merron, Gillian

Hepburn, Stephen

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Heppell, John

Mitchell, Austin

Hesford, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hill, Keith

Morley, Elliot

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hoey, Kate

Hood, Jimmy

Mountford, Kali

Hope, Phil

Mullin, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Howells, Dr Kim

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Humble, Mrs Joan

O'Hara, Eddie

Hurst, Alan

Olner, Bill

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Neill, Martin

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pearson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian

Pendry, Tom

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Perham, Ms Linda

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Pope, Greg

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kemp, Fraser

Prosser, Gwyn

Khabra, Piara S

Purchase, Ken

Kidney, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Kilfoyle, Peter

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

1110

Rapson, Syd

Temple-Morris, Peter

Raynsford, Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Todd, Mark

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Touhig, Don

Rooney, Terry

Trickett, Jon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Truswell, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Salter, Martin

Turner. Neil (Wigan)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Savidge, Malcolm

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sawford, Phil

Tynan, Bill

Sedgemore, Brian

Vis, Dr Rudi

Sheerman, Barry

Ward, Ms Claire

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wareing, Robert N

Singh, Marsha

Watts, David

Skinner, Dennis

White, Brian

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wicks, Malclom

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Willams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Willams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Soley, Clive

Wills, Michael

Southworth Ms Helen

Wilson, Brian

Spellar, John

Winnick, David

Squire, Ms Rachel

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Steinberg, Gerry

Wise, Audrey

Stevenson, George

Woodward, Shaun

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Woolas, Phil

Stinchcombe, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Stoate, Dr Howard

Wray, James

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Stringer, Graham

Wyatt, Derek

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 160.

Division No. 99]

[10.12 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Blackman, Liz

Alexander, Douglas

Blears, Ms Hazel

Allen, Graham

Blizzard, Bob

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Ashton, Joe

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Atkins, Charlotte

Bradshaw, Ben

Austin, John

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Barnes, Harry

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Battle, John

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Bayley, Hugh

Browne, Desmond

Beard, Nigel

Buck, Ms Karen

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Burden, Richard

Begg, Miss Anne

Burgon, Colin

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Bennett, Andrew F

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Benton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bermingnam, Gerald

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Berry, Roger

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Best, Harold

Cann, Jamie

Betts, Clive

Caplin, Ivor

1111

Casale, Roger

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Cawsey, Ian

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Healey, John

Chaytor, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clapham, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heppell, John

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hill, Keith

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate

Clwyd, Ann

Hood, Jimmy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hope, Phil

Cohen, Harry

Hopkins, Kelvin

Colman, Tony

Howells, Dr Kim

Connarty, Michael

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cooper, Yvette

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbett, Robin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hurst, Alan

Corston, Jean

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cranston, Ross

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Crausby, David

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cummings, John

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dawson, Hilton

Kemp, Fraser

Dean, Mrs Janet

Khabra, Piara S

Dobbin, Jim

Kidney, David

Doran, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dowd, Jim

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Drew, David

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Efford, Clive

Laxton, Bob

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lepper, David

Ennis, Jeff

Leslie, Christopher

Etherington, Bill

Levitt, Tom

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fisher, Mark

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Linton, Martin

Flint, Caroline

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Flynn, Paul

Love, Andrew

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McCabe, Steve

Foulkes, George

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Fyfe, Maria

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Galloway, George

Gardiner, Barry

McDonagh, Siobhain

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Macdonald, Calum

Gerrard, Neil

McDonnell, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McFall, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Godsiff, Roger

McIsaac, Shona

Goggins, Paul

McNamara, Kevin

Golding, Mrs Llin

McNulty, Tony

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McWilliam, John

Grocott, Bruce

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Grogan, John

Mallaber, Judy

Gunnell, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hain, Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hanson, David

Martlew, Eric

1112

Maxton, John

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Meale, Alan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Snape, Peter

Mitchell, Austin

Soley, Clive

Moffatt, Laura

Southworth, Ms Helen

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Spellar, John

Morley, Elliot

Squire, Ms Rachel

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stevenson, George

Mountford, Kali

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mullin, Chris

Stinchcombe, Paul

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stringer, Graham

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

O'Hara, Eddie

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Olner, Bill

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Temple—Morris, Peter

Pearson, Ian

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pendry Tom

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Perham, Ms Linda

Timms, Stephen

Pickthall, Colin

Todd, Mark

Pike, Peter L

Touhig, Don

Plaskitt, James

Trickett, Jon

Pollard, Kerry

Truswell, Paul

Pond, Chris

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pope, Greg

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pound, Stephen

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Primarolo Dawn

Tynan, Bill

Prosser, Gwyn

Vis, Dr Rudi

Purchase, Ken

Ward, Ms Claire

Quinn, Lawrie

Wareing, Robert N

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Watts, David

Rapson, Syd

White, Brian

Raynsford, Nick

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Wicks, Malcolm

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wills, Michael

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Wilson, Brian

Rooney, Terry

Winnick, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Ruddock, Joan

Wise, Audrey

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Woodward, Shaun

Ryan, Ms Joan

Woolas, Phil

Salter, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wray, James

Savidge, Malcolm

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Sawford, Phil

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wyatt, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Singh, Marsha

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Allan, Richard

Blunt, Crispin

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brady, Graham

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brake, Tom

Baker, Norman

Brazier, Julian

Baldry, Tony

Breed, Colin

Ballard, Jackie

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Bercow, John

Burnett, John

1113

Burns, Simon

Loughton, Tim

Butterfill, John

Luff, Peter

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Cash, William

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Malins, Humfrey

Clappison, James

Maples, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Mates, Michael

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Collins, Tim

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Cormack, Sir Patrick

May, Mrs Theresa

Cotter, Brian

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Cran, James

Moore, Michael

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Nicholls, Patrick

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Norman, Archie

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Day, Stephen

Öpik, Lembit

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Ottaway, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Paice, James

Duncan Smith, Iain

Paterson, Owen

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Pickles, Eric

Evans, Nigel

Prior, David

Faber, David

Randall, John

Fabricant, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Rendel, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robertson, Laurence

Foster, Don (Bath)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ruffley, David

Fraser, Christopher

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gale, Roger

St Aubyn, Nick

Garnier, Edward

Sanders, Adrian

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gibb Nick

Shepherd, Richard

Gill Christopher

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

Gray, James

Soames, Nicholas

Green, Damian

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Greenway, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Spring, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hague, Rt Hon William

Streeter, Gary

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Stunell, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Swayne, Desmond

Hancock, Mike

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Tayloer, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hayes, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Townend John

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Trend, Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Tyler, Paul

Horam, John

Tyrie, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Viggers, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Waterson, Nigel

Jenkin, Bernard

Webb, Steve

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Wells, Bowen

Key, Robert

Whitney, Sir Raymond

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Whittingdale, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Wilkinson, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Willis, Phil

Lansley, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Leigh, Edward

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Letwin, Oliver

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Lidington, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Keith Simpson and

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to foster an environment in which small business can flourish, with macro-economic stability, a 10 per cent. starting rate of corporation tax, a research and development tax credit, regulation introduced in ways that minimise burdens on business, and the creation of the Small Business Service through which for the first time there will be at the heart of Government an institution dedicated to representing the interest of, and improving the services to, small firms; congratulates the ongoing work being undertaken by the Better Regulation Task Force, chaired by Lord Haskins, in spearheading the Government's campaigning for better regulation; and contrasts this with the boom and bust policies of the previous administration, which led to 15 per cent. interest rates, double digit inflation and the collapse of thousands of small firms.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act relating to the free delivery of election addresses at the first Greater London Authority mayoral election.—[Mr. McNulty.]
10.24 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We are dealing with a money resolution that results from an altercation between the opposition parties and the Government about the issue of free mailshots for candidates in the London elections. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have been forced into the most miserable and humiliating climbdown on the issue.
The last time I stood at the Dispatch Box to discuss the matter, I explained that it was important because the London elections are extremely important. We are dealing with an electorate of 5.1 million people. The precedent set by the Government in their legislation for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European elections and for parliamentary elections established the principle that free mailing should be available to candidates. I pointed out the need to promote a high turnout and fairness in the elections. It is a matter of democracy. Election rules should be agreed by consensus among the parties, as they always have been, rather than the governing party abusing its position to impose on all the other parties its view of how the elections should be conducted.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), put up all the old canards about why the Government could not allow that to happen. First, he said that the London election was a local election. That reason was repeated in the Upper House when these matters were debated there, despite the fact that the Government were already arranging experimental free mailings for the Watford local elections under the Bill.
The Minister put up ludicrous scare stories about the cost of free mailings in the elections, which were exposed in this House and the other place as utterly fraudulent. Finally, there was the curry house argument—the idea that every two-bit restaurant in London would put up candidates for the London Assembly and the London mayoralty in order to advertise its take-away services.

1115
In the other place, the arguments for truth, fairness and democracy prevailed. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, it was a question not of the elected House versus the peers, but of the Government versus the people, with the peers representing the people—and the peers won. They caught the Government ballot rigging.
Not only did the Government attempt to rig the ballot for the selection of their candidate for mayor, they attempted to rig the election itself and, indeed, before they made the concession, they threatened to rig the voting in the House of Lords by appointing extra peers in order to get their way there as well. The Government would rig the entire constitution in their fit of pique and determination to get their way.
Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that during the campaign before the last election, the Labour party called for a voice for London? Will he ask why the Government now want to make that such a muted voice, unable even to communicate with London?
Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government's political and constitutional project is designed to create a voice for the Prime Minister in every corner of the United Kingdom, and to stifle dissent.
In the London election, the Government are about to send an expensive booklet containing information about how wonderful their constitutional reforms are, but they want to deny the same right to the candidates standing in the elections. They have been forced by the Upper House into a dramatic U-turn.
I want to question the Minister about the money resolution, because although the Government have been forced to concede the principle, they have been crabbed, bitter and grudging in their concessions on the detail. They have insisted not on the right of individual candidates to send their election manifestos in separate envelopes or even in a joint envelope to the electors, but on creating an A5 booklet. Candidates will have to send their camera-ready copy to be edited and included in a booklet that will be stapled together and contain the candidates' addresses. What sort of constitutional abomination are we considering?
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Did my hon. Friend use the word "edited"? If so, who will edit the booklet?
Mr. Denis MacShane: Alastair.
Mr. Jenkin: It should be put on the record that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said "Alastair" in response to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) asked. I presume that he means Alastair Campbell, who is the press secretary at No. 10 Downing street. I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be right; I shall give way to him so that he can dig his hole even deeper.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me too quickly. I was referring to that great editor, paymaster, diarist and literator of the Conservative party, Alistair McAlpine.
Mr. Jenkin: I rest my case on the size of the hole that the hon. Gentleman is in.
1116
There is a mess. I accept that the other place has let the unsatisfactory measure pass because it rightly wanted the London elections to be conducted in an orderly fashion, and without chaos descending on them. However, the Government have consequently taken advantage of the leniency and reasonableness of the other place. There is a constitutional mess, which involves the stapled A5 booklet. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham asked a good question, which the Minister should answer: who decides on the order in which the A5 leaflets are printed and stapled together?
Mr. Tom Levitt: The alphabet.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman claims that it is the alphabet. We are back to the hereditary principle that God will decide. The leaflets have nothing to do with fairly conducted elections, for which our original proposal would have provided.
Mr. John Greenway: If the booklet is to be in alphabetical order, will my hon. Friend speculate on the order in which the candidates who bear the name "Frank Dobson" will appear?
Mr. Jenkin: I am confused about which one my hon. Friend means.
Mr. Greenway: There are two.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether that means that there are two or three Labour candidates in the election. That remains to be seen.
Mr. Edward Davey: The second Mr. Dobson lives in my constituency. His name is Frank S. Dobson. I believe therefore that his name would appear below that of the official Labour party candidate on the ballot paper.
Mr. Jenkin: We are presenting the argument that the leaflets will be stapled in a specific order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The money resolution is a narrow matter. There will be an opportunity to discuss booklets, leaflets and ballot papers later.
Mr. Jenkin: Of course I shall concentrate on the money resolution, but the current debate is not part of the time-limited debate that follows. I fear that some hon. Members may not want us to reach the relevant amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's fears are nothing to do with me. He must keep to the money resolution.
Mr. Jenkin: I shall keep to the money resolution because it compounds the mess that the Government are creating as they try to wriggle off the hook of the concessions that they have given. The money is provided not only for the booklet but, according to the money resolution, for
the first Greater London Authority mayoral election.

1117
My noble Friends thought that they were extracting a concession on the conduct of London elections in the future and in perpetuity, for as long as elections shall exist in London, and providing through their amendment a general power for the Government to supply free mailings not only for mayoral candidates but for Assembly candidates at some future date. However, it turns out that the money resolution, which we are attaching to the Lords amendment and which gives Ministers the power to authorise such free mailings, applies solely to this election.
We are compounding the constitutional mess that the Government have created by setting a precedent for free mailings in London elections, but the Government clearly have no intention to honour it at a future mayoral election. That may be an academic matter for Labour Members, but they may not be sitting on the Government Benches after the general election. The measure will make the mess that they have created so much worse and I ask the Minister to explain why a freepost is right for this election, but not others. He would not have tabled the money resolution if he did not agree with that proposition. Goodness me, I cannot believe that he is about to stand at the Dispatch Box and say something in which he does not believe.
If the measure is right for this election, why is it not right for all elections? Why has the Minister's Department—perhaps it was the hapless Deputy Prime Minister again—been so ineffective in its negotiations with the Treasury that it has been unable to secure the money and a general power to authorise expenditure on future free mailings?
This is the closing chapter of a miserable saga of hypocrisy and ballot rigging by the Government, and they are crowning it with the most miserable and backward-looking climbdown from the position from which they started. They said that the elections should not have free mailings, but now those will take place. The Minister should make the long-term policy clear foi that reason—although we shall not vote against the money resolution—or is he merely going to carry on doing what is convenient for his party in government, regardless of the interests of democracy in this country?
10.38 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will reflect on the answer that we hope to receive from the Minister before we decide whether to divide the House. It is far from clear that we should not divide.
A number of questions need to be asked and answered, but before I come to them, may I say that I am extremely glad that the measure is not going through on the nod, which was the Government's intention? I intend to pose some of those questions, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for one, will ask others. First, why are individual candidates being asked to contribute £10,000 rather than some other sum? There must be some logic in fixing £10,000 as the contribution. I ask the Minister, why £10,000 and not some other sum?
Secondly, if the candidates are to contribute £10,000, what balance will fall to the Exchequer? So far as I can see, the bill is not quantified. Surely we are entitled to
1118
know exactly how much the measure will cost us. If it is neither enough nor too much, the House might decide to divide on this matter.
There is another question of considerable importance. Why was it decided to fix on a collective delivery? Applying ordinary principles, I should have thought that individual candidates were entitled to have their election addresses delivered separately. A point of principle is involved. If they are delivered collectively, who is to ensure that the Labour party does not, in one way or another, tamper with the material of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)?
As a matter of fact, the Government are tampering with it in the legislation, because they have stipulated the order in which the election addresses will be printed. Surprise, surprise! The name of the hon. Member for Brent, East will not appear first in the bundle. It will be preceded by the Labour party's official candidate. That may be a coincidence, but I should be extraordinarily surprised if it was.
The Government have so ordered the election of the Labour party candidate as to cheat one of their own hon. Members. They have so ordered the legislation as to compound the sin. We are being asked, on the nod, to acquiesce in a fraud. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will decide not to allow this fraud to go on the nod, and to vote against it. I suspect that some of my right hon. Friends will now speak in similar vein.
10.42 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friends may have to wait a little longer.
Mr. Eric Forth: That is all right. The hon. Gentleman can take as long as he likes.
Mr. Hughes: Be that as it may, the story of the money resolution began a long time ago, on 28 January last year, in the Standing Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked the then Minister with responsibility for London, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), about expenses for the Greater London Authority election. The hon. Gentleman went on to run a candidate's campaign—he may now regret that, and think that he would have been better staying as Minister for London, but that is a matter for him.
On 28 January, the then Minister for London said:
We do not want to hang about, but I remind him that there are still some 15 months to go before the election of a mayor. We have plenty of time to consider the issue carefully, take on board all relevant matters and introduce sensible, practical expenses limits which will have the desired effect.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 84.]
Time did not slow down, but Government activity seemed to get into some difficulty. It was not until 15 December that the consultation on expenses limits began. The Government asked for replies before the end of the Christmas holidays. They said, "You may not be able to get round to it, but that will be fine by us."
When it came to the consultation, my hon. Friends and I, and others, suggested that the Government should consider the little issue of a freepost. When the Bill was

1119
last before the House, I asked the Minister whether anyone had argued against a freepost in response to the consultation, and the answer was that no one had suggested that there should not be a freepost. To use the words of the then Minister, having had plenty of time to consider the issue carefully, take on board all the relevant matters and introduce sensible, practical expenses limits, the Government asked for views and then ignored them completely. They decided to resist the idea that for an electorate of 5 million people there should be a freepost.
It was not, therefore, altogether surprising that, when we debated the Representation of the People Bill on Second Reading, the issue did not come up on the money resolution. The clear implication all along had been that the money for the expenses would be dealt with under the Greater London Authority Bill (Election Expenses) Order. That was always the intention; that was what the consultation was about; and everyone expected that all the election expenses would be dealt with as a bit of business ancillary to the Bill. But, lo and behold, when it was suggested that we ought to have a freepost, the Government thought up another wheeze. The wheeze was, "We're terribly sorry, but you cannot have a freepost under the Greater London Authority Bill (Election Expenses) Order, because we would have to change major legislation, namely, the Representation of the People Bill."
Only last month, we began the second round of the debate. We became involved in a discussion with the new Minister responsible for London about the freepost for the London elections. The short history of the next month showed that the Government are not very good at maths.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Had the hon. Gentleman supposed that they were?
Mr. Hughes: I had not, but I think we have no better example of how bad they are at maths than what followed.
When asked about a freepost on 15 February, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said:
The total cost to the public purse of a free mailshot would be very significant. The total could well be over £10 million and possibly as much as £20 million, depending on the number of candidates … Such costs would be disproportionate to the GLA's proposed budget of some £35 million, and would be equivalent to more than £3 for every council tax payer in London.—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 902.]
The truth is that the Government were exaggerating just a teeny weeny bit. By the time the Bill reached the other place and Lord Bassam spoke, the cost was well and truly up to £30 million and there was speculation that it might be significantly more.
In Committee in the House of Lords, the Under-Secretary, Lord Bassam, had suggested that a freepost would mean a blank cheque.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In the post.
Mr. Hughes: Or not, as the case may be.
On leap year's day, 29 February, Lord Bassam said on the Floor of the House of Lords that, following negotiation:
1120
we came up with a formula which reduces the cost considerably.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 February 2000; Vol. 610, c. 497.]
Over two weeks of negotiation, it appeared that the freepost would not cost £20 million or £30 million, but might only cost about £2 million. That was the argument that some of us had put in the first place, and, indeed, the argument that the Electoral Reform Society—which knows a bit about these matters—had put in the first place.
As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, we now have cause for a second money motion, just to sneak in the authority for this itsy-bitsy extra bit of money that the Government thought was £20 million, but which has now fallen to £2 million.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is a lot of money.
Mr. Hughes: It is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman is having good fun, but he would not want to mislead the House, would he? He knows that we are talking about different things, and he knows that different things were discussed in another place. Are we discussing whether there would be a single mailshot to every voter, which would cost £750,000 per candidate—if there were 20 candidates, the cost could be £15 million—or are we discussing a much more disputable concept? While the hon. Gentleman has fun, let him be careful not to mislead the House over what was discussed in another place.
Mr. Hughes: The threats are a bit late in the day. The deal has been done. The Minister was party to many of the negotiations. He knows perfectly well that the argument from the Government Benches all along was that it could not be done, was not achievable, could not be delivered and was not manageable.
It was the Opposition who put forward the idea that the literature could all be stuffed into one envelope, could be delivered at the same time and could be delivered with the polling card, which had to be delivered to every elector in any event, so we always thought that it could be done at low cost. The independent advice that the Minister has received has clearly borne out the fact that we were right and the Government were always wrong.
Mr. Gummer: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point, has he noticed that the Minister has given away something very important? The cost could be £15 million only if there were 20 candidates. If he is suggesting that, at one stage, it was £30 million, he must have imagined that there would be 40 candidates for the mayor of London. Has anyone ever conceived of there being 40 candidates? Now we have so few, is it possible that the Government were covering their tracks, lest all those who chose the Labour party candidate decided that, instead, they would stand themselves?
Mr. Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman's party leader said, what was originally a day mayor looked as if it was turning into a nightmare.
Mr. MacShane: That is William's joke.
Mr. Hughes: I did attribute it.

1121
The Government might well have dreamt that there would be 40 candidates, all from the same party. Anything was possible, but we have a proposition. We should never have reached the stage of having to battle for it. Every elector should have the opportunity to read what every duly nominated candidate wants to put to them. It was the only way in which it could be done. It means that every elector will receive some literature. To its shame, the Labour party has resisted that until the last minute. I hope that we never hear such nonsensical and badly justified arguments again.
10.52 pm
Mr. Tom King: I had not intended to intrude on the debate, and I apologise to the House if I do not appear to share the view of some that the proceedings are a joke. I may be rather old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that this country's electoral law is very precious and that the rules under which we fight elections are a particular responsibility of the House. The Government have an overwhelming majority in the House and can carry anything against the opposition parties here. They have a peculiar responsibility to respect that. There was a tradition that, if such changes were introduced, there would be a Speaker's Conference and all-party agreement would be sought on what the rules should be for an election.
I am making a serious point. I happen to represent a constituency that, 130 years ago, was disfranchised because of the corruption there. It was not exclusive to the constituency: there was a great deal of corruption in this country. One of the traditions of our democracy, of which I hope we are all proud, is that, over the centuries, we have sought to establish higher standards for the holding of elections than exist in some countries. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) to shout across the Chamber.
Mr. King: I hope that all hon. Members are proud of the standards in this country according to which elections are held; we all fight elections and come to serve our constituents—proud that we have fought the elections under the fairest rules in the world.
I accept the Government's right to introduce new arrangements. Although I do not believe in the idea of a new mayor for London, the Government are entitled to create the position. The proposal was made in their manifesto, and they are entitled to it. They have introduced the legislation, and there will be a mayor.
Today, we are talking about the arrangements under which an election will be fought. Something that did worry me, particularly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), was the statement that the proposals will affect only the first mayoral election. That does not stack up. We all know the power of precedent. As we also know, the Government's policy is to try to introduce elected mayors to other parts of the United Kingdom, in the cities that desire to have them. Today, undoubtedly, we are debating arrangements that will set precedents that could have wide application.
I am sorry, as I said, to interfere with the jollity that some hon. Members may think the debate warrants, but there are some serious principles at stake. I think that the
1122
Minister will support me in saying that, if the arrangements for the London election applied to general election practice, the Government would not have dreamt of introducing them without seeking all-party agreement, possibly in a Speaker's Conference. We are treating the mayoral election as if it were a one-off, and not as the precedent for a much wider electoral system.
I tell the Minister—who I think is listening seriously to what I am saying, unlike the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who seems to regard the matter as a joke, which I do not—that we really must consider very seriously the arrangements that are made. It would be devastatingly damaging if the image were created that there has been an attempt at ballot rigging to enable the Government to avoid embarrassment.
In this case, the Government are proceeding not by a Speaker's Conference on electoral arrangements, but by virtue of their majority in the House. They must therefore be exceptionally scrupulous in the way in which they introduce the arrangements.
Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. King: No. I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I want to make only a brief speech. I am speaking because I have not enjoyed the first exchanges in the debate. For those of us who care about the House of Commons and the standards of democracy in the United Kingdom, this is a very important issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Forth—
10.58 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to speak more often in the Chamber, as my name is not sufficiently in your mind. I shall rectify that before you even know it.
One of the problems with the motion is that it is all the wrong way round. We are being asked to give our approval to a money resolution before we know which amendments to the Bill the House will agree to. It is possible that we may not agree to any of the amendments. We may not agree, particularly, either to the amendment to which the money resolution partly refers, or to an amendment to that amendment. We are therefore being asked—it really is unacceptable—to give the Government a blank cheque, presumably on the basis of the Minister saying, in the usual way, "Trust me."
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend will also want to remind the House that that is contrary to precedent. The usual rule is to have Second Reading, which deals with policy, followed by a debate on the money resolution. On this occasion, it is the other way round.
Mr. Forth: I sometimes think that Ministers are not interested in precedent, but will ride roughshod, as they see fit, over any convention or precedent. This debate is yet another example of the same practice.
The problem, as hon. Members have said, is that we cannot possibly know the eventual scope of the money resolution. The fact that it will apply only to the first Greater London Authority mayoral election is stated in the money resolution itself, which leaves some very

1123
interesting questions about how subsequent elections may be funded. Conversely, it may suggest that only for this election will those arrangements be made, and that, subsequently, no such arrangements will be made. The Minister will have to clarify the position.
Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has touched on a procedural difficulty, which we have encountered because of the late stage at which the amendments have been tabled. Not only do the amendments have no line numbers because of the rush to get them here, but some of the amendments that we tabled have not been called because they are proscribed by this narrow money resolution. Some amendments that the Opposition parties wanted to debate have not been called because they do not fit in with the money resolution and are, therefore, outwith the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you the discretion to reorder the business so that the money resolution can be taken after the debate on the Lords amendments? If you were to do that, some of the amendments that we wish to have discussed would not be proscribed by the form of the money resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is as aware of the procedures of the House as I am. The money resolution is necessary for the House to go on to debate the Lords amendments, which will come at a later stage. Without the money resolution, we would not be able to debate, accept or reject the Lords amendments.
Mr. Forth: That presents us with a great temptation to try to vote down the money resolution. That would have an admirable effect.
We can see the real difficulty in which the House finds itself. However, that is the fault not of the House but of the Government, who have typically muddled the Bill from start to finish.
Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Who made the rules that you have just announced to the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It certainly was not the Chair. The Standing Orders of the House are made by the House itself, and the hon. Gentleman is part of that procedure.
Mr. Forth: I am conscious of the passage of time, and I want to leave the Minister time to answer the questions.
Does the provision apply to the election of the mayor alone, or to all the Assembly candidates? If not, will the Assembly candidates be denied the facility? Lords amendment No. 34 would insert a new clause, which refers to the possibility that the mailing may not be in booklet form. Subsection (4)(d) admits of the possibility of
separate mailings in respect of the free delivery of election addresses.
That would have serious cost implications, and the Minister must tell us more about that. The Lords amendments also refer to whether the mailings will be delivered by the Post Office or by some other means.
1124
The Minister must explain what will happen before we can judge whether the money resolution will involve expenditure of £1 million, £2 million or £20 million.
We must know the Minister's answers to the questions about Assembly candidates, separate addresses, the booklet and whether the mailing will be delivered by the Post Office or otherwise—all those points are referred to in the Lords amendments—before we can make up our minds on the money resolution. I shall conclude my remarks, because I see that the Minister is anxious to answer the questions—although I shall believe it when I see it.
11.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is a pleasure to reply to such a congenial debate. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke for the Conservative party, have had their little dose of yah-boo-sucks politics for tonight, so perhaps we can get on with discussing the serious business before the House.
A money resolution is needed to authorise the use of public funds to provide for the free mailing and the delivery of a booklet of election addresses by mayoral candidates contesting the first GLA election. The resolution also authorises the use of public funds to pay for the cost of printing 5 million copies of the booklet. The precise cost to public funds of printing will depend on how many candidates want to include their election address in the booklet and pay the required £10,000 per candidate contribution towards printing costs. If the sum of the financial contributions from the candidates does not exceed the total cost of printing, the difference will be met from public funds
The cost may be met by the candidates or it may not be. However, we decided to set a limit of £10,000 on the sum that they would contribute. Obviously, during a mayoral election, they would contribute some money if there were not that sort of public funding.
What amazed me was that the hon. Member for North Essex said that he wanted a general power to authorise public spending on free mailshots in elections, and he wanted the Home Office to seek that authorisation from the Treasury. In this place and in the other place, the Conservative party has sought to use taxpayers' subsidies for their council candidates by law. The Tories say that they oppose public subsidies for political parties, but now they demand public spending. They tell the electorate that they want fewer tax burdens, but when it suits them they want to burden the taxpayer with funding Tory candidates in council elections.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not give way.
At least the Liberal Democrats have the consistency of supporting public funding for their political party throughout. Conservatives say publicly that they do not support that, but when it comes to some financial difficulty that they may have, despite donations from

1125
foreigners to subsidise their candidates, they call for a general power from the Treasury to authorise public spending for free mailshots, which will benefit them.
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. O'Brien: The Government did not provide for each candidate to be invited to send free mailshots because of the potential cost to the public purse.
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. O'Brien: Opposition Members were prepared to dish it out, now let them listen to a bit of it.
The Government did not provide for each candidate to be entitled to send mail post-free because of the potential cost to the public purse and the likelihood of abuse by unscrupulous candidates. We have resolved those concerns in what is essentially a compromise resolution brought before the House by us—a solution that met with agreement in the other place, including among its Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members.
The Post Office calculated that a single mailshot to every London elector would cost £750,000. As I have already said, it is not difficult to work out that if there were 20 candidates, the cost to the taxpayer would be £15 million, and if there were 40 candidates, it might well be £30 million. We do not yet know how many candidates will come before the electorate at the mayoral election. If each candidate is entitled to a free mailshot worth £750,000, the potential for abuse is enormous—[Interruption.] Yes, abuse. If I were an unscrupulous
1126
advertiser who wanted to advertise a particular business, I would only have to put down the £10,000 deposit to obtain £750,000 worth of free advertising for my business. Presumably, that is what the Tories want. I suspect that quite a few unscrupulous people might well decide to put their name to that, which is why we have included in the amendments provisions to deal with those who might be unscrupulous. That is why we want to ensure that those who stand for mayor will not be able to cause the taxpayer to spend enormous sums to benefit their commercial preferences.
We have brought forward a workable solution, which met with cross-party support in another place, and the amendments that we have tabled—
It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act relating to the free delivery of election addresses at the first Greater London Authority mayoral election.
Mr. Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to suggest to the House that the Post Office would not be able to enforce the guidelines that it is usually allowed to enforce to prevent commercial exploitation of the freepost in elections?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a matter for debate.

Representation of the People Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of the House of 20th January be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages
3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee
4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall.

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous
6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on the Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and urgent matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 7 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
11.10 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is with regret that I once again speak to a guillotine motion on discussion of amendments to this Bill, an important constitutional measure that purports to encourage more people to get involved in our representative democracy. It could lead to wholesale changes to the way in which we elect our politicians.
Considering the Government's record in introducing constitutional changes since they took power in 1997, it is right that we should scrutinise the legislation very carefully. After all, this is the Government who brought us the constitutional change in European elections which, with the list system, transferred power from the people to political parties and led to a mere 23 per cent. turnout for the European elections. This is the Government who introduced the devolution changes without properly thinking through the settlement. They have not fully thought through the West Lothian question. Indeed, their response to it was that it should not be asked.
This is the Government who introduced the changes to the second Chamber without fully thinking through what shape the House of Lords would finally take. The threat is that, if the House of Lords does not behave, it will be flooded with more of Tony's cronies—the Prime Minister's placemen—and made into a compliant Chamber to do the Prime Minister's bidding.

1129
The irony of this guillotine is lost on the Government. We have only up to two hours to discuss amendments dealing with important issues such as asylum seekers. We already know that the number of asylum seekers has grown dramatically over the past three years. Last year, it was 36,000; this year, it is 71,000. There is a backlog of 100,000 asylum seekers, and we need to know whether they are to be allowed to vote in our elections.
Other amendments deal with absent voters. We all want more people to vote—voting should be made easier—but we do not want to make it easier for people to vote fraudulently. There are amendments to deal with proxy votes.
One amendment concerns the declaration of local connection—the Swampy factor, as we have called it.
Mr. John Greenway: Before my hon. Friend continues his catalogue of Lords amendments, will he agree that we might not have needed to consider Lords amendments at all if the Minister had listened to our arguments when we considered the Bill in Committee? Most of the amendments made in the other place were amendments that were first tabled here. If the Government believe that this House should have supremacy over the other place, when will the House make its own amendments to legislation rather than having to rely on the other place to do it?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will remember, as I do, that we had to sit through a guillotine motion when the Bill first came through the House. We ought to look for consensus on such important constitutional matters, yet the Government keep introducing guillotines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): While the hon. Gentleman huffs and puffs about important constitutional matters and the outrage of a guillotine on such a Bill, will he explain why the Opposition took the view that they did not need to vote against the guillotine on 20 January? If it was so important, why could they not even be bothered to vote?
Mr. Evans: The Minister should just wait until the end of this timed motion to see how we will proceed. We all know the game that the Minister is playing. He wishes us to spend 20 seconds on the guillotine motion and then go on to the detail of the amendments, but he knows full well that the time that is allowed to discuss those important amendments means that we will be lucky to get past the first or second batch. We know his ploy, but we are not going to fall into his trap. Tonight, we are seeing a denial of democracy and we are not prepared to stand for it.
The Minister has rolled out several pilot schemes. He will know that, because he had to answer a written question on 29 February from the shadow Home Secretary, asking him to list all the pilot studies for which he had given permission. However, if it had not been for that question, we would still be waiting for such a list. The Minister gave that list to other organisations first and the press also had a copy, but the House had to wait. In fact, the House still has not officially been given the full list of pilot schemes so that we can question Ministers about them.
Mr. O'Brien: I am concerned if the hon. Gentleman thinks that there has been any discourtesy to the House,
1130
because there has not. As he knows, certain councils applied for pilot schemes and we gave them a provisional indication that, when the Bill was passed, we would be disposed to give our approval to particular councils. The hon. Gentleman will also know that there were broad discussions on the issue. However, because the Bill has not yet been passed, we have not been able to give that formal consent. When we do, we will of course immediately tell the House.
Mr. Evans: That is a rather thin response, and the Minister knows that it is doubtful whether any of the local authorities whose applications for pilot schemes he has already approved will later be told that they will not get those schemes. It would have been far better if he had told the House at the same time as he told the local authorities. He could have done so through a written answer, or he could even have come to the Dispatch Box and answered hon. Members' questions on the issue.
The pilot schemes are important, as 1 am sure that the Minister agrees, but many other issues contained in the amendments need to be discussed.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which we will discuss next week, the Government are purporting to amend this Bill to allow the Electoral Commission to intervene with local authorities in respect of pilot schemes?
Mr. Evans: I am fully aware of that and, if we are able to reach the amendments that deal with the pilot schemes, I hope to go into more detail. However, that is not the Government's intention. They do not want us to investigate the amendments, and that is what the guillotine motion is designed to achieve.
At 10.15 pm, we started to discuss the money resolution. We have now started to discuss the guillotine motion, for which we have an hour, but that will eat into the two hours that the Government have allowed for the discussion of these important amendments. It is an absolute disgrace. We face a double guillotine. Even Wilkinson Sword never produced a blade that shaved as close as the guillotine motion that the Government have produced tonight. True democrats will look on tonight, not in amazement, but in disgust.
There is no surprise at the Government's antics. After all, this is the Government who rigged the referendum on devolution in Wales. This is the Government who rigged the internal elections for its leader for the Welsh Assembly. This is the Government who rigged the selection of the mayoral candidate for the Labour party, so they have ended up with two Dobsons. We are all wondering when they are going to drop the dead Dobson. The Government even rigged the procedures for grammar school votes. Now, they want us to trust them on the amendments tabled tonight. The Government want us to trust them with a referendum on a single currency, but they have another thing coming.
The Government have a very large majority and can push any measure through the House, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) noted, so they have a special obligation which they should treat with respect. Everyone knows which the Government have no principles, and tonight we have discovered that they have no shame.
11.21 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. However, like the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), we Liberal Democrat Members want to register our belief that it is an unacceptable use of Government power to apply a guillotine motion to a Bill which, up to now, and as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) noted—has benefited from the consensus agreement of a working party. That working party was chaired very ably by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth).
However, the Government now want to steamroller this relatively small number of groups of amendments
Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are 100.
Mr. Hughes: There are 100 amendments, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, in 12 groups, and some of them contain controversial and important matters. One highly controversial subject—the use of electoral registers—was discussed in a long debate in the House. Should they be sold commercially? Should people be allowed to remove their names, or make money out of the registration process? That is not an uncontroversial topic, and it would be perfectly proper for the House to debate it in the context of citizens' liberties.
Another controversial matter is the possibility of holding pilot schemes for voting on Saturday or Sunday, or early in the morning, or on voting for a week, or by electronic means. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has made it clear that there would be great unease in her part of the world if it were suggested that voting should be held on Sundays. The Bill contains a provision to decide such matters locally but if, as a result of pilot, the Government were minded to implement a proposal more widely, there is much concern that safeguards should be adopted to protect communities with different religious views, traditions or cultural backgrounds.
Thirdly, and self-evidently, the list of amendments goes further than the Government's concession on freepost facilities, which stemmed from an agreement between the parties. For instance, another amendment deals with whether one candidate can refer to the name of another, or to other parties. The Government's majority means that they will always be able to get proposals through the House. However, they do not enjoy a majority in the country, and they did not even gain a majority among those who voted at the general election. The electoral process has merely given the Government a distorted majority in the House.
It does the Government and the country's view of democracy no good when the House is consistently confronted with proposals for guillotines. The matter could have been negotiated by agreement, and a proper day's debate secured to allow adequate time for those hon. Members who wanted to speak. If we cannot have debates about the electoral process without guillotines, we really are in some trouble.
11.24 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The two preceding speeches have been important, but I want to concentrate on the way in which the motion has been
1132
tabled in the names of the Leader of the House and of the Home Secretary. No member of the Government Front Bench rose to explain to the House why the motion was necessary. It is a shaming, inappropriate motion. Something is going wrong, as is evident in the arrogant, undirected, self-justifying nature of the Government.
I speak firmly because, again, this is an impossible motion. Not many hon. Members have been in the House a long time, but I have been here 20 years. I have seen the gradual squeezing by a jealous, self-aggrandising Executive of the freedom to debate and properly discuss the issues.
The Government are clearly in a great mess over their programme, given the hysterical state we are in. I remember how the Government, when in opposition, used to rage against the use of the guillotine by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. They counted, as I counted, with alarm. For the first time since the introduction of the guillotine procedure, there was an average of five a year under Mrs. Thatcher. The figure rose, finally, to six a year.
What does this Government do? Let us be candid. They have been in power for less than three years, and between 1997 and 2000 they have guillotined 35 Bills. This is the fourth Bill to be guillotined this Session, and it is only March.
Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of yet another factor? When the Conservative Government were in office and they moved guillotine motions, it was normally done by the Leader of the House, which showed respect to the House. We now have a junior Home Office Minister moving the guillotine motion. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Shepherd: I hope that I indicated that. There is a casualness here. At least the Secretary of State responsible for taking a Bill through the House used to move the motion, if not the Leader of the House, who is the custodian of the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and safeguards the House as an institution.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman wants me to justify the guillotine motion. I thought it best to do so at the end of the debate, once I had heard the points made by hon. Members such as him. I shall be happy to justify the motion then. Given that the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly and speaks so forcefully about this matter, and given that he is so outraged, why, earlier in our proceedings, did he take the view that he would not even vote against the guillotine motion?
Mr. Shepherd: I have spoken on almost every guillotine motion in the House for the past 20 years. There comes a point when it feels as if repetition does not serve the cause. Let us weigh what is happening. The Minister says, rather audaciously, that he intends to address the ruminations of the House after the motion has been discussed. He does not speak to the motion, but merely responds to hon. Members' observations: it is a motion on the Order Paper, moved formally. It would cheer the ghost of Lord Garel-Jones as he ranges round the House. The Government are implementing the device that he stumbled on and used but once—the incorporation in the time allowed of the guillotine motion. If we take the

1133
guillotine seriously, there will only be 45 minutes in which to discuss all the amendments to the Bill. That is less than five minutes for each group. It is palpably nonsense.
Some 35 Bills have already been guillotined. The Government clearly want practice, requiring something like 52 guillotine motions, including today's supplemental motion. What has gone wrong with them? Why are they so arrogant when it comes to due process?
Hon. Members have heard me say often enough that the liberty of this people is formed through this Chamber. It is our only representative institution—we have nothing else but this Chamber. Wilfully and cheerlessly, the Government march through guillotines, because they insist on having 10 Home Office Bills in this Session alone. I feel for the Minister who is, as often as not, charting two Bills simultaneously through Committee. How can this be a serious process?
The Labour party should listen to what is happening in the Government. We have a Prime Minister who barely comes here, whose factual attention to detail such as guillotine motions is nil, who gives us inaccurate answer after inaccurate answer, even contradicting the information given by his Ministers, as if this were a show place.
The Home Secretary told us yesterday about ritual opposition, as if opposition in our system is ritualistic. It is not. Opposition is in the clash of idea and counter-idea. The Home Secretary's Hegelian vision of how, through synthesis, we come to an understanding of what is appropriate is all nonsense. Every one of us is elected on an equal franchise. We come here to represent our people and say our bit for them, and they can then judge whether we have acted appropriately.
What of due process? A long time ago it was said that our freedom and liberty lie in the interstices of procedure. That is true. We must remember Burke, as I have said many times. The Minister knows as well as I do that a parliamentary majority is not just x divided by 2 + 1: it is informed by the process and our right to argue and say what we think is appropriate.
I think that the whole London mayor idea is nonsensical. It has no relevance to Aldridge-Brownhills, and only 23 per cent. of the electorate in London voted for it. It is typical of the Government in that they play around with the constitution not knowing what they are doing, and then do not wish to discuss it. They break up our Union and undermine the Welsh nature and culture. They do all that with no solid signal from the electorate to the effect that that is what they want: whatever the agenda, it must be steamrollered through, and that is what the House is doing yet again tonight.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a neighbour, for generously giving way to me again. The Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, and had three days in a Committee of the whole House. On the second day in Committee, only two Conservative Back Benchers bothered to speak. On the third day, only four Conservative Back Benchers bothered to speak. We then had lengthy speeches from one or two hon. Members, who were clearly abusing the procedures of the House. The Deputy Speaker had to intervene on
1134
19 occasions during those debates. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the abuse is coming from the Opposition rather than from the Government?
Mr. Shepherd: I know one thing, and I say it as gently as I can to the Minister: he is not a solicitor or barrister whom I would employ in these matters. After all, who is he to determine where an argument lies or at what stage simpletons such as me begin to appreciate what is happening? I have begun to appreciate from the figures that I have quoted that the Government are using the guillotine more frequently than it was ever used under Mrs. Thatcher, and in a more savage and aggressive way than she ever used it. I can only conclude that it is because she had a parliamentary history, and the new Labour Government have almost none. They do not remember the traditions of allowing other people to speak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Rubbish.
Mr. Shepherd: Although the hon. Gentleman says "rubbish", he remembers full well his own anger at the use of the guillotine in the past.
I return to the idea that opposition to the guillotine is not ritualistic. It is the right of every Member to try to express himself. The Liberal Democrats have fought hard on some of the issues in the Bill and have a right to argue their case; I have a right to argue my case; and the Government's official Opposition have a right to argue theirs. In forgetting due process, the Government forget the trust of the British people that in this place our liberty and freedom are secured. They are not secured by measures such as this.
11.34 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I said at the outset of the proceedings on the Bill, when I had other duties and spoke from the Dispatch Box, that I believed that the Bill was deeply flawed. I made very unkind remarks about it. I am glad that some of those deficiencies have been corrected in the other place, but I am bound to say to the Minister that all the warnings that we gave on Second Reading and in Committee, which as the Minister said, was on the Floor of the House, have turned out to be true in even greater measure than we expected.
One other negative aspect is that, by the introduction of the Greater London Authority election measure, the Government have included in the Bill a matter that clearly does not command consensus. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, in a Bill of such importance, affecting electoral matters, that is a great mistake. It says something of the Government's lack of preparedness for the assembly and mayoral elections that the only way in which they have been able to rescue the situation at this very late stage has been to introduce a measure that has no place in the Bill. As a result, a Bill on which we hoped there would be complete consensus has ended up the subject of bitter and acrimonious argument.
Such acrimony is made all the greater because, regardless of whether the Government are justified in deciding to impose a guillotine on proceedings on Lord

1135
amendments, it is abundantly clear that they have not allocated enough time. There should have been at least a whole day's debate.
The Minister says that hon. Members were given three whole days in Committee—indeed we were. He says that, in some debates, Conservative Members did not speak. I shall give him two reasons why. For the first two days, we were debating not what is in the Bill but what some of his hon. Friends and Liberal Democrats Members would have liked to be in it. That is not scrutiny of the Bill but an attempt to add other measures to it. In reality, we had only one day in Committee in which to scrutinise the Bill. That is why some of my hon. Friends were persuaded not to speak in some debates. Otherwise, we could not have debated some of the issues that should have been discussed. I know, I was there and I understand entirely the reason for the number of contributions: lack of time. We are using the time allocated—it is the only way available to us—to register our protest yet again at the Government's mishandling of a measure that should have commanded consensus.
I turn to the most telling argument that one can deploy on the mess that the Government have got themselves into.—
Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
Mr. Greenway: Let me finish. The Minister can answer points in his winding-up speech.
As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the tragedy for democracy and our democratic process is that we were not able to put this Bill right before we sent it to the other place. We have had to rely on the other place to make changes, some of which the Minister told us only three or four weeks ago were totally unnecessary but is now asking us to accept.
Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the irony that this elected Chamber has not been allowed to make changes to arrangements for elections which the non-elected Chamber has been allowed to make? Is that not a symbol of the disrespect with which this Government treat this Chamber?
Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend, with all his experience, articulates my point better than I have done. I simply add the caveat that, although we clearly have unfinished business in reforming the other place, the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, believe that this Chamber should be pre-eminent. I think that most of us would accept that that is right because this is the elected Chamber. However, owing to the way in which the Government handle their business, we are not able to show that pre-eminence by sending to the other place legislation that is in proper order. It must have been abundantly clear to Ministers and their officials that the Bill was deficient, yet when the Bill was still being considered by the Commons, they made no effort to change it. That reveals their pomposity and arrogance, and we Members of Parliament are right to voice our concern with the passion shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position is worse than that which he
1136
describes? The other place had the opportunity to debate a very large number of amendments as recently as Monday this week, and in that debate, the Minister in the other place accepted amendments that he had ruled out only days previously. The Government are in a complete muddle, and have been throughout.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, but I believe that the situation is even worse than that. The Lords amendments need to be scrutinised in considerable detail because the speed with which they have been drafted and approved means that some are defective. I predict that, before long, we shall have to debate these matters all over again, in connection with amended legislation.
For that reason, the House should be especially grateful to the other place for persuading the Government that, as we in this House had suggested, it was right to remove from the Bill the Home Secretary's powers to extend to parliamentary elections the pilot schemes for which the Bill provides. When we raised that issue, we were told that we were scaremongering and that there was no likelihood of that happening. Thank goodness there is no likelihood of its happening now, because the relevant provisions have been removed.
11.41 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I would find it difficult to emulate the passionate speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but I want to echo his stated view that these proceedings are a scandal. We should not pass over it quietly.
Let us remind ourselves what the House is being asked to do. I start not with the guillotine motion, but with the Lords amendments. There are 12 groups, consisting of more than 100 Lords amendments. Many of them are the result of considerable work in the other place, yet the House of Commons is treating those deliberations with total contempt—not because we want to, but because we are being made to. The order of business gives us but two hours from the commencement of this debate for the completion of the entirety of the business. Even if we wanted to, there is no way we could debate every important amendment. Not only could we not do so, but it is intended that we should not do so. That is a scandal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an important point when he talked about process. He spoke more eloquently than I can, but I understood him to mean that, in a democracy, individual Members, parties and representatives have a right to express their views on matters that come before the House. Some of the matters dealt with in the Lords amendments are extremely important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to the extraordinary irony that this House—the elected Chamber—will not be discussing the provisions dealing with election addresses that were inserted in the other place. Those provisions touch on democracy, but we are forbidden to discuss them. Not only are we not going to discuss such matters, but the procedures that the House is adopting will prevent us from discussing them.
Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when the Minister tells us, as he probably will,

1137
that if we had not debated the guillotine motion there would have been more time to discuss the amendments, he really means that we should not discuss the guillotine motion and that we should instead discuss some bits of the amendments? Does he also agree that it is only by debating the motion that can we draw attention to the scandal of these proceedings?
Mr. Hogg: That was to be my next point; I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The argument—the weasel words—from the Government is that we should make rapid progress to the next business, but what is the point of discussing the next business? We know full well that if we are lucky, we can discuss only the first, second or third of the 12 groups.
I would rather protest at the scandal of the Bill proceeding in this way. I would rather not discuss the Lords amendments than let the matter pass. If we begin to touch the Lords amendments, people will say that they received some discussion and therefore they have had some authority from this House.
Late as it is and with a limited audience, we must make it plain that this is a scandal. It is the sign of an autocratic Government. Our business as representatives of the people is to do our best to stop it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) intends to divide the House, but I can tell him now that I shall. I very much hope that I will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
11.46 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to contrast this guillotine motion with the earlier guillotine motion on the same Bill—on Report, I think. Although guillotine motions always put pressure on the House, on that occasion we got through the list of amendments before us. We were conscious of the pressure of time, and some hon. Members spoke very briefly to allow us to do that. It worked well on that occasion.
The problem with the present guillotine motion is the amount of time available. The speeches that I would like to hear in connection with the 12 groups of amendments before us are 12 speeches from my hon. Friend the Minister, to explain to the House the meaning of each group of amendments. It may be possible to do that briefly, as some of the amendments may be technical. The guillotine should provide sufficient time for such explanations and for appropriate responses. If we had more time, we might be able to deal with the Lords amendments in the way that we dealt with amendments on Report.
11.48 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief, and I hope to be non-party political in what I say. I speak as a Back Bencher, but, as many hon. Members know, I also chair the Procedure Committee, which clearly is concerned that Parliament as a whole, and particularly the House of Commons, should have an adequate opportunity to scrutinise any legislation that goes through the House. I am sure that hon. Members on the Government Benches will not disagree with that. I am happy to follow the brief contribution from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)
1138
I picked up from the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at the beginning of the debate that there had been no discussions through the usual channels about the way in which the Bill was to be handled. I assume from that that there has been no consultation through the usual channels with either the Liberal Democrats or with the Conservative and Unionist party, which is the main opposition party.
I register my concern that that is the case. On an important matter such as representation of the people, which is of deep concern to the democratic traditions of this country, it is worrying that there has not been proper co-operation between the Government of the day, with the huge majority that they have in the House, and the opposition parties, which clearly feel strongly on the subject.
I followed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) carefully. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes as fervently as my hon. Friend in the democratic process and the traditions of parliamentary democracy. I always listen to his remarks with deep attention because I regard him highly. If more hon. Members spoke in this place with the integrity of my hon. Friend, we would have a better Parliament. The Government ignore his words at their peril.
The Government have a substantial majority now, and they may be able to push the Bill through the House, but they do themselves and the House no service. The House deserves better on a Bill that deals with what the House is about: representing the people of this country in this country's Parliament. I view with deep anxiety the way in which the Government have handled the Bill. To include a timetable motion in the time that we are allowed to debate 12 sets of amendments is disgraceful—more than that, it is undemocratic.
11.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that he would make a non-partisan speech and then made a partisan speech. That is slightly regrettable, but the way in which he decides to use his position is a matter for him.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why I had left my comments to the end of the debate. Some valid points were made, not least by the hon. Gentleman. I shall bear in mind his comments on when I should speak in such a debate. It is useful to hear from someone of his experience.
Mr. Shepherd: Other hon. Members could have spoken during the hour. That means that the Minister may not have had an opportunity to speak. He declined such an opportunity to the Conservative Front Bench. The House might not have allowed him time to speak. He should lead on the amendment.
Mr. O'Brien: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that hon. Members would want to ensure, as they did during the previous debate, that the Minister had an opportunity to reply.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was worried about the guillotine. I refer him to the comments on 20 January of

1139
the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is the Liberal Democrat shadow Leader of the House. He made it clear that he understood why the Government believed that they needed a guillotine in specific circumstances, even though he was careful not to endorse it. He said:
we believe that agreed programme motions are the way to proceed … I do not understand why the Conservative Front Bench, having agreed to the necessity and importance of the Bill, did not then agree to a programme motion.—[Official Report, 20 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 1007.]
I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, and I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey at the need for a guillotine. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall would also understand that. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will recall that there were reasons for imposing a guillotine.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). However, whatever happened when the Bill was previously considered by the House, it is no excuse for not trying to agree a procedure on such an important Bill when the Lords amendments returned. We might have been able to achieve that, but the Government did not try.
Mr. O'Brien: That is not quite fair. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the guillotine was imposed earlier in our proceedings on remaining stages in the House. It is usual to impose a guillotine on all stages when matters are referred back to the House from another place. Therefore, we are complying entirely with the usual and customary approach to these matters during consideration of a Bill of this sort. I do not accept that there is some great breach of precedent.
Although we have a lot of amendments to consider tonight, none ought to be particularly contentious, with the possible exception of those relating to the free mailshots in the London elections. As I shall explain at the relevant points, quite a few are simply minor drafting amendments and others respond to points raised by the Opposition here and in the other place. Not one of our amendments was opposed by the Opposition in the other place and quite a lot were taken on the nod. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that they should not have been, but the Conservatives in the other place were happy with them. It seems to me that we are having a ritual debate about the guillotine, even though the Conservative Opposition in the other place took many of these measures on the nod. They did not oppose them.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: In a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
The mailshots were the one issue on which there was a lot of controversy and I accept that we probably need some time for debate, but we would have had it were it not for all this ritualistic nonsense.
Mr. Blunt: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) presaged that suggestion
1140
by saying that we would be told that we are at fault for complaining about the guillotine. The Minister says that most of the amendments are uncontroversial, so why table a guillotine motion in the first place?
Mr. O'Brien: A guillotine motion has been tabled—the Opposition did not vote against it on 20 January—because on 19 January a handful of Conservative MPs behaved in a manner that was described in the following day's debate as an abuse of the House. Long-winded, discursive speeches caused the Deputy Speaker to intervene on various Members to bring them to order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should leave the Deputy Speaker out of it. No one should involve the occupant of the Chair in the argument.
Mr. O'Brien: I take your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That brings the number of interventions to 20—one on me.
The Bill has enjoyed broad parliamentary support through most of the proceedings. Although hon. Members have raised proper points, it was the product of a working party with all-party representation and everyone has had time to express their views.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: May I finish my point? Then I shall give way.
Many of our amendments are technical; they have arisen from our debate. It is not right that we should tolerate the behaviour of a few hon. Members—as on 19 January—who were not prepared to contribute to the debate previously. I again make the point that, having demanded that the Bill be taken on the Floor of the House, only two Conservative Back Benchers bothered to make full speeches on its second day in Committee. On the third day, only four Back Benchers bothered to make full speeches.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I agreed to give way to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
Mr. Paterson rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I shall do so in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
Most of the Members who now express great concern about the Bill did not bother to turn up to the Committee debates. At various times, only a Front Bencher—the hon. Member for Ribble Valley or one of his colleagues—and possibly a Whip were on the Opposition Benches. On occasion, the hon. Member for Lichfield

1141
(Mr. Fabricant) turned up. That went on for long periods, which shows how concerned some Members were about these matters.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister answer the straight question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt): why has a guillotine motion been tabled if the amendments are not contentious?
Mr. O'Brien: The guillotine has been imposed because for a long period, and on completely uncontentious matters, a handful of Opposition Members decided to run the debate unnecessarily into the highways and byways.
Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to say that my hon. Friends were going down highways and byways that were irrelevant to that debate, given that they were not so directed by the Chair?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for debate. If someone catches my eye, they can rebut that—but not at the moment.
Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) had heard me properly, he would know that I actually referred to the highways and byways of the debate.
Mr. Hawkins: On the occasion to which the Minister refers, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was also made after the business motion was moved by the Leader of the House. It was made quite clear from the Chair that the debate in which many of my hon. Friends and I participated was entirely in order. Serious points were being made, many of which the Government have been forced to accept in the other place or in some of the amendments that they are presenting tonight. The Minister is failing to deal with that important point. It was a valuable debate, which highlighted the weaknesses in the Bill.
Mr. O'Brien: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman must have been present at a different debate from the one in which I participated. Not many of the matters that were discussed during those days on the Floor of the House are now turning up in these amendments.
Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious that we are pressed for time, and I am trying to conclude. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Heath: I am a little concerned about the Minister's argument. Surely he would agree that some hon. Members were involved in serious debate on the issues in the Bill. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I, together with many other hon. Members, were involved in debates on this issue. Are we not entitled to continue those debates on the serious issues that have been referred to us by the
1142
House of Lords without the application of this guillotine motion—which seems to refer to other hon. Members, who may have other purposes?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. As his hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, in the early stages of the proceedings we had a sensible debate in which the Liberal Democrats, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and some Conservative Front Benchers and Back Benchers participated. The sensible debates of the first couple of days turned into something entirely different on the final day of the Committee. The Tories decided to drag it out unnecessarily.
Some hon. Members have argued that guillotines are unacceptable. Conservative Members may recall with a certain discomfort the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in 1986, when the then President of the Council, John Biffen, moved the guillotine motion and pointed out that six constitutional Bills had been timetabled since 1966. This Bill is not as controversial as most constitutional Bills. We have had very few real Divisions on it.
During our debates, certainly today, we have had much ritual posturing. I have explained that, given the largely uncontroversial nature of most of the amendments, which the Opposition did not oppose in the other place, I am confident that we can deal with the Bill properly. The Opposition did not vote against the guillotine motion on 20 January following delays the previous day. We do not want to repeat such unnecessary delays. We should get on with the debate.
Mr. Evans rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made a contribution to the debate.
Mr. Evans: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman cannot contribute again, not even with the leave of the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 134.

Division No. 100]

[12.40 am

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ashton, Joe

Bradshaw, Ben

Atherton, Ms Candy

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Atkins, Charlotte

Browne, Desmond

Austin, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Barnes, Harry

Burden, Richard

Battle, John

Burgon, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Butler, Mrs Christine

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bennett, Andrew F

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Benton, Joe

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Berry, Roger

Cann, Jamie

Best, Harold

Caplin, Ivor

Blackman, Liz

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Chaytor, David

Blizzard, Bob

Clapham, Michael

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

1143

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clelland, David

Jenkins, Brian

Clwyd, Ann

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Colman, Tony

Jones Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Corston, Jean

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cranston, Ross

Crausby, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cummings, John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kemp, Fraser

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Khabra, Piara S

Darvill, Keith

Kidney, David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davidson, Ian

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Laxton, Bob

Lepper, David

Dawson, Hilton

Leslie, Christopher

Dean, Mrs Janet

Levitt, Tom

Dobbin, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Doran, Frank

Linton, Martin

Dowd, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Drew, David

Love, Andrew

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McAvoy, Thomas

Efford, Clive

McCabe, Steve

Ennis, Jeff

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Etherington, Bill

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Fisher, Mark

McDonagh, Siobhain

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Macdonald, Calum

Flint, Caroline

McDonnell, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McFall, John

Foulkes, George

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Fyfe, Maria

McIsaac, Shona

Galloway, George

McNamara, Kevin

Gardiner, Barry

McNulty, Tony

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

MacShane, Denis

Gerrard, Neil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gibson, Dr Ian

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Mallaber, Judy

Goggins, Paul

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Grocott, Bruce

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Grogan, John

Maxton, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Meale, Alan

Hanson, David

Merron, Gillian

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Michie Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Healey, John

Mitchell, Austin

Hendersor, Ivan (Harwich)

Moffatt, Laura

Hepburn Stephen

Mountford, Kali

Heppell, John

Hesford, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hill, Keith

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hinchliffe, David

Olner, Bill

Hoey, Kate

O'Neill, Martin

Hope, Phil

Palmer, Dr Nick

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pearson, Ian

Howells, Dr Kim

Pendry, Tom

Hoyle, Lindsay

Perham, Ms Linda

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pickthall, Colin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pike, Peter L

Hurst, Alan

Plaskitt, James

1144

Pond, Chris

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Primarolo, Dawn

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Purchase, Ken

Timms, Stephen

Quinn, Lawrie

Todd, Mark

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Touhig, Don

Rapson, Syd

Trickett, Jon

Raynsford, Nick

Truswell, Paul

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ruddock, Joan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Tynan, Bill

Salter, Martin

Vis, Dr Rudi

Savidge, Malcolm

Ward, Ms Claire

Sawford, Phil

Wareing, Robert N

Sedgemore, Brian

Watts, David

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

White, Brian

Singh, Marsha

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wilson, Brian

Snape, Peter

Winnick, David

Soley, Clive

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wise, Audrey

Spellar, John

Woodward, Shaun

Steinberg, Gerry

Woolas, Phil

Stevenson, George

Worthington, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wray, James

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Wyatt, Derek

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stringer, Graham

Mr. Clive Betts and

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mr. Graham Allen.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cotter, Brian

Amess, David

Cran, James

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Baker, Norman

Duncan, Alan

Baldry, Tony

Duncan Smith, Iain

Ballard, Jackie

Evans, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Faber, David

Blunt, Crispin

Fabricant, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Fearn, Ronnie

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Brady, Graham

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brazier, Julian

Fraser, Christopher

Breed, Colin

Gale, Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Garnier, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gibb, Nick

Burnett, John

Gill, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Gray, James

Butterfill, John

Green, Damian

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Greenway, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Cash, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hammond, Philip

Hawkins, Nick

Chope, Christopher

Hayes, John

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Collins, Tim

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

1145

Horam, John

Rendel, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Robathan, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

Robertson, Laurence

Hunter, Andrew

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Ruffley, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Key, Robert

St Aubyn, Nick

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Sanders, Adrian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lansley, Andrew

Shepherd, Richard

Leigh, Edward

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Letwin, Oliver

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Spring, Richard

Lidington, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stunell, Andrew

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Swayne, Desmond

Loughton, Tim

Syms, Robert

Luff, Peter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Townend, John

Malins, Humfrey

Trend, Michael

Mates, Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Viggers, Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Waterson, Nigel

May, Mrs Theresa

Webb, Steve

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Moore, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Norman, Archie

Wilkinson, John

Oaten, Mark

Willis, Phil

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Ottaway, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield

Paterson, Owen

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Pickles, Eric

Prior, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Randall, John

Mr. Peter Ainsworth and

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Mr. James Arbuthnot

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 20th January be supplemented as follows:

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

SUBSEQUENT STAGES
3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee
4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous
6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on the Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and urgent matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 7 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.

Representation of the People Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 22, 24, 34 and 78, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

  NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 23, after first ("a") insert ("qualifying")
  12.16 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4.
  Mr. O'Brien: The amendment gives effect to a commitment that the Government made in another place to introduce amendments to ensure that those who have not been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom should not be able to register and vote here. Rolling registration will make it easier for people to get on the electoral register. I am sure that the whole House will agree—Opposition Members made the point in earlier debates on the legislation—that it would be wrong if those who have not been given leave to enter this country were to try to take advantage of that by registering. This group of amendments will ensure that that does not happen, and ensure that those who have entered the country illegally may not register. I am sure that the House will agree that illegal entrants should not have the right to vote.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: This is a very important group of amendments. It is one of 12 groups of amendments, which we now have only 50 minutes to debate. That is a great shame—(Interruption.] It is fine for the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), to try to make a joke about it, but the Bill is about the real crisis of democracy that is not outside this Parliament, but inside it.
  We are grateful that the Government have listened to the suggestion made, in Lords amendment No. 4, by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish. The suggestion deals with those who are commonly called asylum seekers. It is important that we should consider the legislation's full repercussions. Just now, the Minister rightly said that the overall thrust of the Bill is to make voting easier. We fully support the Government in that intention. However, in making voting easier, we want to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote are able to vote.
  Although we support the Government in encouraging those who are legally eligible to vote to register and take part in the democratic process, we shall have to consider how the legislation will work in bad times as well as in good. Some Labour Back Benchers will remember that

  1149
  Opposition Members made the same statement when the Government of Wales Act 1998 was being passed, but that we were shouted down. The Government said that everything would be okay and that there would be no problems once that legislation had been enacted. Now that it has been enacted, we see the problems. I wish that we had had the requisite foresight then, but that would have resulted from greater scrutiny and the Government listening more carefully to the arguments. I hope that they will do that on these amendments.
  My great fear about amendment No. 4 results from the fact that it has been grouped with the other amendments. The Electoral Commission was mentioned earlier and it will be discussed in the debates on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which is to come before the House next week. The Government will consult the commission and it will become far easier for people to vote. I welcome that. Pilot schemes will examine mobile voting, weekend voting and earlier voting, and the Minister has issued a list in a written answer that appeared on 29 February. However, the details of the schemes have yet to be published.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to put meat on the bone of the list that he has already issued. Of the schemes, 16 deal with early voting, two deal with the extension of the hours of the poll and four deal with mobile polling facilities. People normally vote by going to a fixed polling and saying that they are who they claim they are. They may show a polling card and their name is crossed off. However, they do not have to show a card, and we have already agreed that we do not want to make that an obligation. However, we are not certain how much personation takes places in local, parliamentary, European, Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament elections. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that proper research will take place into the problem of personation, particularly in regard to the areas where the pilot studies are being rolled out.
  The ease with which people are able to vote causes a problem with asylum seekers. [Interruption.] The Minister of State should not heckle, but should listen carefully to what I have to say. Perhaps we will then ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised and improved. The right hon. Gentleman was not present at the Bill's earlier stages, so he will not know that many of our amendments were taken on and made in another place. The Bill has returned to the House and further improvements can be made to it.
  We know that, two years ago, 36,000 asylum seekers came into the country and that 71,000 came in last year. About 100,000 people are trying to claim asylum in this country. We seek assurances from the Government. The Minister says that people who are waiting to find out whether they have made a proper legal entry to this country will be able to vote, but until that point has been made clear they will not be able to register to vote. The Bill means that, with the local declaration of identity, people will be able to go to a registration officer and say that they live in a particular area. They may be homeless or of no fixed abode, but the Bill will make it easier for people to say that they have lived in an area without properly having to prove that they have done so. The Minister looks confused.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: This debate began some time ago and I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care
  1150
  and with my pen poised to try to note one serious point that he has made about the amendment. So far, I have barely used my pen. What point is he trying to make?
  Mr. Evans: I suspect that that may be more a problem with the Minister than it is with me. Had I been out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have told me. The Government have introduced one of the severest guillotines that I have seen in my eight years as a Member of the House. They want us to rattle through each of the 12 groups of amendments. The Minister knows that, in the 50 minutes remaining to us after the debate on the guillotine motion, we will not be able to debate the ninth group of amendments, dealing with the free delivery of election addresses at the mayoral elections; that was his intention, so it is pointless making bogus arguments. We shall not be denied the opportunity of debate. It is all right for the Government. They have the numbers on their side. They are abusing their large majority. They can always win the vote, but they will not deny the Opposition their voice when Opposition Members have something to say. Back Benchers are also being denied a say, and they should be alarmed by that.
  How many asylum seekers come from Commonwealth countries? Of the 100,000 who are awaiting adjudication, how many would be eligible to register should they be allowed to stay here? Registration officers will have to deal with many changes to the registration system. The rolling registers, which we back, will be expensive for local authorities. What resources will be made available in that respect? What guidance will registration officers be given on dealing with inquiries from people in this country who have not been given leave to stay? There may be a large number of such people. As I say, 100,000 are awaiting adjudication on their claim for asylum. What guidance will registration officers be given on how to determine whether people are eligible for inclusion on the register? There may be others who are not claiming asylum but who are here as Commonwealth citizens; they will not be eligible but will nevertheless ask to be registered.
  The local declaration is also important. Will each registration officer ask the person who comes to the town or city hall whether he or she is a bona fide British citizen, and what sort of proof of identity will the registration officer ask for? Those are important questions that need to be answered.
  We are extremely grateful that the Government have listened and for the amendments suggested in the other place by Lord MacKay. But we want to ensure that the legislation will be effective and that the registration officers have the tools to do the job.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendments are sensible and we support them.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that he is pleased that the Government have listened. He said that the thrust of the Bill is to make voting easier, and that the Opposition fully support that. In view of the debate that we had earlier, I am pleased that he has decided that the Government listen and that he supports the general thrust of the Bill.
  The provisions will bite on all port applicants, overstayers, illegal immigrants and those with no leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Asylum seekers with

  1151
  leave to remain and who are Commonwealth citizens may well be in a different category. We will have to do the calculation to let the hon. Gentleman know how many asylum seekers there are from Commonwealth countries.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Evans: Is the Minister saying that the Commonwealth citizens on the list of 100,000 who are waiting for adjudication will be able to vote in general elections?
  Mr. O'Brien: There are obviously people who have come here lawfully, who may have good reasons for being here and who have, quite properly, been granted the right to enter, and who may then, for their own reasons, have decided to apply for refugee status. That puts them in a somewhat different category. They have the right to be here in the first place. If they are Commonwealth citizens, they may well be in a different category from those who have entered illegally, for example.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about guidance for electoral registration officers. We will certainly discuss with them what guidance they will need in order to determine some of the issues, but we do not anticipate that issues such as local connection will create much controversy.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(ii) compliance with any prescribed requirements; and")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 11, 13, 40, 44 to 51, 53 to 55, 59, 61 to 65, 69 to 73, 75, 76 and 86.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although these are described on the amendment paper as minor and drafting amendments, I ask the Minister to consider some points carefully, because some of the amendments add substantially to the text of the legislation. Some of them have been discussed in another place. I refer hon. Members who have not looked at the Lords Hansard to the number of occasions on which the Minister, Lord Bassam of Brighton, had to concede ground both to Liberal Democrat Lords and to my noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish.
  It is clear that the Government have been in a terrible mess over this legislation and have been trying to rush, in the past few days, to get it into order in the other place. That is why we have such a huge group of amendments to correct mistakes that were made earlier. We shall come later to even more substantive amendments that the Government finally accepted in another place.
  1152
  Lords amendment No. 69 refers to matters that need to be proved. What advice has the Minister been given by his officials on the standard of proof? The amendment is to insert a new section 180A, which says:
  The certificate of a registration officer that any person is or is not, or was or was not at any particular time, duly registered in one of the officer's registers in respect of any address shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it; and a document purporting to be such a certificate shall be received in evidence and presumed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.
  In certain circumstances, that could be an important matter. Will the standard of proof for the contrary being proved be the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, or the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt? I am sure that officials will advise the Minister about that. I rather presume that it is likely to be the civil standard, but these are important matters relating to the certificates of registration officers and I hope for an answer.
  Mr. John Hayes: What background information do we have about the nature of proof that will be required and the definition of sufficient evidence?
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right to query that point, because the amendment is so recent and has been brought forward at such a late stage—I referred earlier during the debate on the guillotine motion to the fact that the other place was considering amendments to the Bill as recently as Monday—that we have no background information. That is why I am asking the Minister to respond. My hon. Friend is on to a good point because the provision is potentially draconian, in that it says that the certificate of the registration officer will be conclusive.
  Lords amendments Nos. 71 and 73 delete the words "the principal Act". Will the Minister confirm whether that corrects a mistake in the original drafting? I do not believe that those words appear anywhere else in the Bill, but I would like the Minister to shed light on what the "principal Act" was.
  Lords amendment No. 76 deletes the word "time" and I hope that the Minister will shed light on why that deletion has been made. The original words of the 1983 Act, mentioned in schedule 3(4) of the Bill, referred to
  the time, place and manner of its publication.
  Why will only "place and manner" be left in the Bill?
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 11 deal with the position of patients in mental hospitals and prisoners on remand. It has been accepted by the Home Affairs Committee, on which I served, and by the Government's review, chaired by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and which led to the introduction of the Bill, that the provisions for both those categories should be revised. Those issues received much debate in the House and in the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley pointed out that the amendments have been rushed through at the very last minute, and we fear that the Government will have to come back to the House and amend the legislation yet again.
  There have been so many amendments relating to previous mental health legislation and legislation on remand prisoners that I wonder whether the Minister is certain that the Government have finally got it right.

  1153
  Are they confident that the legislation is in the correct form in respect of the amendments needed to previous legislation on those issues? When I practised at the Bar, I dealt with several cases connected with mental health issues. Of course, all practising lawyers in the criminal law have been concerned about the rights of remand prisoners, so I simply want the Minister to reassure us that we will not find that the last-minute rush will lead to more confusion that will need to be corrected.
  It struck me as an extraordinary irony that amendment No. 6 contains the words
  page 4, line 13, after 1984, insert.
  The guillotine proceedings tonight have been yet another example of how this has become a truly Orwellian Labour Government, in which a word means what they want it to mean. The Government specialise in newspeak, so it struck me as ironic and appropriate that Government amendment No. 6 refers to things happening after 1984. It is precisely because Conservative Members worry so much about the Government's Big Brother style that we wish to query so many matters.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am saddened by that attitude. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) clearly said that the Government were listening, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) went on about matters Orwellian, saying that the Government are in mess because they have made concessions and have not got their act together. Throughout the debate on the Bill, the Government have shown that we are prepared to listen to sensible points. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has just presented himself as the king of yah-boo-sucks politics, which does not give the debate the credit and the importance that it deserves.
  Some of the matters that have been raised are quite technical, so I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which bring clauses 4 and 5 within the scope of the provisions for the registration of mental patients and remand prisoners. Those provisions are thereby brought into line with new section 7C, which is inserted by clause 6.
  The amendments will make entitlement to be registered for a 12-month period explicit on the face of the Bill, whereas that entitlement was to have been included in regulations. In the course of our deliberations, Conservative Members have asked for matters to be included on the face of the Bill, the Government have listened to the points that have been made and have sought to respond. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley acknowledged that, and I welcome his approach. However, I think that the yah-boo-sucks politics exhibited by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath does the House no credit.
  Amendments Nos. 11 and 45 also clarify that the word "residence", in this context, needs to be construed in accordance with new section 4. As to whether the Government consider that we have got the matter right, I can tell the House that we would not have brought it forward if we did not think that we had.
  Amendment No. 69 provides for the evidential effect of a registration officer's certificate that a person was, or was not, registered at a particular time. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about the standard of proof, but we are dealing with a simple, factual statement by a registration officer. How that statement is used will
  1154
  determine the standard of proof that is required. Therefore, if the statement were to be used in a civil case, the standard of proof will be the civil standard. If it were used in a criminal case, the situation could be different if a prosecution were under way. Matters would then have to be proved to the normal standard of proof. That is fairly straightforward.
  Amendment No. 71 is necessary because provisions relating to the registration of overseas voters are now contained solely in the Representation of the People Act 1985. Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are consequential on amendment No. 62, as they remove provisions relating to the effect of section 49 from new sections 2 and 3 of the 1985 Act.
  The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about the principal Act. The proposals relate to matters arising from the 1985 Act.
  Mr. Hawkins: What about amendments Nos. 76 and 65?
  Mr. O'Brien: I apologise for omitting those amendments. Amendments Nos. 76 and 65 remove the requirement that regulations should cover the time at which a register is published. That is already dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, so the amendments are merely technical to remove the requirement to deal with that matter in regulations.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will consider that my remarks have clarified those technical but no doubt relevant issues.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 3

  RESIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION
  Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 32, at end insert—
  ("() Subsection (3) above shall apply in relation to a person's absence by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution as it applies in relation to a person's absence in the performance of any duty such as is mentioned in that subsection.")
  12.45 am
  Mr. Evans: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43, 77, 82 to 85 and 87.
  Mr. Evans: Yet again, the thrust of the amendment is to encourage more people to vote. I hope that the Minister will correct me if my interpretation of what the amendments seek to do is wrong. In my estimation, they would encourage more young people at universities and colleges to register to vote, perhaps even registering in two places. They would give them the opportunity to use a proxy or a postal vote, whereas in the past they may have found that difficult or impossible to do.
  I totally support the idea of students having postal votes. There is a burgeoning student population. We have a problem getting young voters to register, and once they have, getting them to vote is another problem. Anything that we can do to encourage that must be good.

  1155
  I have more of a problem with the proxy aspect of the amendments. I think that the Government were concerned about making it easier for people to have proxy votes as opposed to postal votes. Will the Minister explain why they have adopted this approach? In the other place, Lord MacKay made a suggestion that will go a long way towards dealing with the problem of personation where proxy votes are concerned. Personation can happen when it is known that someone who intended to vote has moved away, or that he never intended to vote. The suggestion is that, if electors ask for a proxy vote, they are notified three days later that a proxy has been awarded in their name.
  The Government said that they would consider this idea, but nothing seems to have happened. I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about it. If he thinks that it is still worth considering, perhaps he could look at it again.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendments correct an omission that was spotted when we were considering the Bill. They would allow those who are away on educational courses to be registered at their normal place of residence. They are sensible amendments.
  I should like to flag up the question of dual registration. It is not before us for consideration, I understand, because there was no agreement in the working party. However, concern was expressed, and I should like to use this opportunity to express the hope that, as soon as this measure reaches the statute book, we will reconvene a working party with cross-party representation. In that way, we will not be rushing to catch up with necessary electoral concerns, but can immediately pick up concerns that are more difficult or need more time or that people have raised since the working party began.
  The working party was a very useful institution. Rather than having it constituted on an ad hoc basis, it would be better to have it as a more permanent institution, and one slightly less formal than the Speaker's Conference suggested by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Not only would we then have a rolling register; we would have a rolling review of electoral law, and that would be useful.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He proposes having an on-going working party or similar group because there are always relevant issues to be raised. I can see merits in that for dealing with dual registration, and I will certainly consider his point. However, he knows of the difficulty of getting parliamentary time to legislate and, given the difficulties with this Bill, I would not at the moment encourage my colleagues to support the idea of an annual electoral procedures Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 7 and 77 and part of amendment No. 85 owe their origin to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). He asked that the provisions be introduced, and we have considered the issues and introduced them. They are designed to rectify an anomaly to which my hon. Friend drew our attention when the Bill was first brought before the House. Students now routinely obtain absent votes, even though, strictly
  1156
  speaking, the law does not include attendance at an educational establishment as one of the grounds on which absent votes may be granted.
  We should, of course, be doing everything that we can to enable that group of electors to vote and one way to do so is to allow students who are studying at an establishment some distance from their parental home to vote by proxy. Normally, we know where the student's home is, so some of the dangers of proxy votes that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) identified, which we continue to be concerned about, are not present in this case.
  The amendments clarify the point that students are entitled to apply for absent votes and do not in any way relax the proxy vote regime. We agreed to the amendment tabled by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, and we can consider the issues raised by him when we make regulations.
  Amendments Nos. 43, 82 to 85 and 87 are in many ways technical, and, as points were not made about them, I will not describe their effect.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 6

  NOTIONAL RESIDENCE DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION
  Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
  ("( ) Where a declaration of local connection made by a homeless person is delivered to the registration officer concerned during the period—

  (a) beginning with the date when a vacancy occurs—

  (i) in the seat for the parliamentary constituency within which the required address falls, or

  (ii) in the seat for any Scottish Parliament constituency or National Assembly for Wales constituency within which it falls, and

  (b) ending on the final nomination day (within the meaning of section 13B below) for the parliamentary by—election, or (as the case may be) the election under section 9 of the Scotland Act 1998 or section 8 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, held in respect of that vacancy,

  the declaration must state that, during the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration, the declarant has commonly been spending a substantial part of his time (whether during the day or at night) at, or near, the required address.")

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Mr. Evans: We are pleased that the Government have at least listened to us a little, because we raised the issue several times during the proceedings on the Bill, and it was raised several times in the other place.
  We would have preferred the Government to go further with the amendment, so we have gone into great detail about why we feel that the system needed more checks to deal with what we referred to colloquially as the Swampy factor. I am sure that it has been called many other things. We did not want the Swampy factor to take hold. I echo my earlier remark that we must consider how this legislation will work at bad times as well as good. Giving it the benefit of the doubt will not prove to be effective when things start to go wrong.

  1157
  Once a vacancy occurs through a by-election, whether because someone dies or stands down, a local declaration of connection provision might be abused. The Government's amendment will probably put a quarter of a check on that possibility. It will allow a homeless person to state that he or she has lived in an area for three months or more. It was suggested several times in the other place that there should be proof of that.
  There are no identification cards, but someone making a declaration of local connection should be able to come forward with some documentation. We were flexible in our suggestions about particular documents. We appreciate that many homeless people simply will not have a driver's licence or passport, but the Minister might have looked more generously on a more flexible arrangement such as a letter from the police, a social worker or someone involved in a charity to say that the person concerned was known to them. As it is, homeless people simply have to make the declaration that they have been in the area for three months or more, and that may have to be accepted.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow but, in suggesting that the matter is considered again, will he pay particular attention to the difference between travelling and homeless people? Homeless people might be "resident" in an area, have a legitimate and proper interest in its affairs and wish to participate in elections, whereas people travelling through for whatever reason—legitimately or otherwise—may have a much less profound reason and legitimacy in taking part in an election. That is an important distinction, which needs to be drawn out.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We all want—this is why we have supported the local declaration of connection—to ensure that homeless people, who normally do not, like others, have a voice in Westminster through an elected Member, are not denied the opportunity to vote in elections. We are considering people legitimately making local declarations. We want to ensure the integrity of the system; we do not want it debased in any shape or form.
  I hear what my hon. Friend says about people travelling through an area, although, if a vacancy occurs, someone who is doing so could not go to the town or city hall to claim a connection for three months or more. That is covered; I believe that that is the Minister's quarter check. The problem arises when someone who is travelling through an area makes a declaration, but no proof of its truth is needed. They may merely state that they have been resident for three months or more, and that is that.
  I turn to something a little more sinister: the Swampy factor. We have an example of where the provisions might go cruelly wrong if we do not ensure that proper checks are made: a by-election in a marginal seat, where protesters want to make their feelings known. We are talking about people who feel equipped to go out to sea in rough conditions when they want to board a ship to make a protest, who climb trees to make a protest and live there for weeks, if not months, and who dig holes in the ground to stop developments—direct action. My goodness, it is a doddle for such people to turn up at a town or city hall to claim a local connection once a vacancy has occurred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, what proof will electoral registration officers look for?
  1158
  We need look no further than the Scottish Parliament by-election in Ayr, where the previous majority was 25. If everybody voted in the same way again, only a small group of people would have to make the declaration. All sorts of people might be interested in doing so to sway the election.
  Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the matter again. He has obviously felt that there has been a problem, otherwise the amendment would not be before us. If he does not address the problem now, how would he do so after the Bill's enactment? A small group of people moving into the area could make a difference in a general election as well.
  Will the Minister comment on whether the amendment addresses local as well as parliamentary elections? I ask that because, at times, including in 1997, a general election and local elections have been held on the same day. If the amendments deal with only one type of election, could people be enfranchised for one type of election, but not another, once the vacancies have been announced?
  1 am
  Mr. David Heath: I shall speak briefly. As the Minister knows, we support the declaration of local connection as a suitable vehicle.
  I do not entirely buy some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). For example, I do not accept the notion of a peripatetic platoon of homeless people who are prepared to make a nuisance of themselves in any by-election; nor do I accept the generalisation that those who are involved in environmental protests are prospective perjurers.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that we should introduce legislation that contains as few loopholes as possible? He is talking about protesters who feel free to break the law in pursuit of direct action, so why does he believe that they would not break the law in another respect?
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman had waited for me to finish my remarks, he would have heard me say that I agree that there is a basic problem that needs to be addressed. However, I do not accept the generalisation that people who care passionately about environmental issues are necessarily likely to perjure themselves.
  There is a weakness in the Bill relating to the period when a vacancy has arisen. People might make declarations and affect the result of an election. As a Member of Parliament with a majority of 130, I am conscious of the effect that a relatively small number of people moving from place to place might have. The amendment contains almost the weakest possible safeguard against that eventuality, so I wonder whether serious consideration was given to a prohibition on addition during the period of a vacancy. That might have been a safer course to adopt.
  I accept that the amendment represents a move in the direction of those who have expressed concern. We must monitor the operation of the provision carefully—indeed, we must constantly review our electoral arrangements to identify what does and does not work.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has expressed his fears about the

  1159
  Swampy factor. I do not object to people voting because they want to protest about an environmental issue, such as a road or other development that causes them concern. If they can establish lawfully and properly a local connection, they should be able to vote and express their view. That is democracy and we accept that people have a right to disagree with us. The fact that we may passionately disagree with their views does not mean that they should not have the right to vote.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests, however, that the provisions allowing registration by means of a declaration of local connection could be abused by those who might travel to an area during a by-election solely for the purpose of voting in that by-election and in the absence of any local connection. I think that he overstates the fears, but we acknowledge that they have a basis, so we have considered the notion of a group of politically motivated protesters who, on hearing of a by-election in an area in which they are not resident, travel to that area and become residents by way of a declaration of local connection. We believe that that is an unlikely scenario, but the potential for abuse exists, so we have sought a way in which to close off the possibility.
  The amendment would overcome the potential problem by requiring those who register by means of a declaration of local connection during a period when a by-election is pending to confirm that they have had that connection with the address that they have supplied for registration purposes for the three months prior to the date on which the declaration is signed.
  A homeless person who has been living in the area concerned for the requisite time, but who has not got round to registering, will be able to register, as he should indeed be able to do. Carpetbaggers, if I may so describe them—the term has already been used—will not be able to make the required declaration. To take the point made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), they are just passing through, so they would not comply with the conditions.
  It is usually obvious that a convoy of new age travellers has moved into the area. The electoral registration officer would become aware that they had arrived. If that occurred in the course of a by-election, it may well raise suspicions in his mind and he may take extra steps to ensure that those people had complied properly with the law. Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 makes it clear that making a false statement in a declaration of local connection is a criminal offence that can be punished with a fine of up to £5,000.
  We have safeguards in place. I do not believe that the concerns are as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we have covered the serious issues that he presented to the House.
  Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister. Our suggestion still holds good. We do not want to stop anyone who has a legitimate right to vote. However, the Minister conceded that there was some basis for our fear, particularly in seats such as Ayr, where the majority is 25.
  Once the vacancy is announced, no one should be allowed to register to vote. With rolling registers, people can register at any time. That is the beauty of the system. Although there may be a possibility of one or two people
  1160
  being prevented from voting legitimately, many other people who would try to vote illegitimately would be prevented from doing so.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The point that he raised—the Swampy factor, as he called it—is a possibility, but it is unlikely. Because it is a possibility, we have closed it off and dealt with the hon. Gentleman's concern.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Clause 9

  RESTRICTION ON SUPPLY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN REGISTER
  Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 10, line 32, leave out ("both the full register and the edited register may") and insert
  ("the full register and the edited register may each")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 19.
  Mr. Hawkins: The importance of the amendments reinforces the argument that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I advanced in the debate on the guillotine motion. We are just starting the fifth group of amendments, and our protests about the inadequate time allowed have been amply borne out.
  This group deals with one of the most important issues, which was raised extensively on Second Reading and in Committee, and again in another place. It led to a lengthy debate, with a number of amendments being moved as recently as Monday of this week in another place.
  The concerns that I raised in Committee—at that time, from the Back Benches—have still not been properly addressed. We are waiting to hear from the Government about the progress of their consultation with industry about the commercial use of the electoral register, and what representations have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said in Committee, mixed messages have been given throughout the Committee stage and in all the statements made by Ministers in this House and in another place. We await a code of practice. For a long time, we have been asking the Government to introduce regulations under clause 9. They have been promised since Second Reading. Our anxieties about the difference between the full register and the edited version cover such important issues as battered wives—
  It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
  Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 87 agreed to [some with Special Entry].
  Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have conunitted a scandalous abuse of power in trying to deny the House the opportunity to debate the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has decided on those matters, and I must move on.

  Minimum Wage (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  1.11 am
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I want to speak about the implementation of the national minimum wage in Scotland. The minimum wage will rank as one of the great achievements of the Labour Government. However, I come to speak not about its merits but about its implementation. While it is true that, in the past, the majority of employers paid wages that were above the present national minimum rate, and that now a majority of employers who previously paid low wages now abide by their legal responsibilities and pay that rate, there remain a minority of rogue employers. Many vulnerable employees and potential employees need our help and protection.
  It is too soon for a full analysis of the scale of the problems, but we can get a glimpse of them. Citizens Advice Scotland has collected information on cases from some of its bureaux. That information raises several worrying issues. The trawl by Citizens Advice Scotland is not scientific or complete, but it gives a valuable insight, which I want to share with the Minister and the Department. I hope that it will lead to action in the not-too-distant future.
  The information that I cite is from a special briefing that is based on cases from individual citizens advice bureaux in the past year. I believe that it will lead us to agree that the Government need to undertake an information campaign on the national minimum wage to tell citizens about their rights, specify who is entitled, explain the levels, and ensure that bad employers are deterred from malpractice.
  The trawl gives an idea of the sort of people who have faced difficulties, and the Government might consider aiming any information campaign at them. Approximately two thirds of those who have approached the citizens advice bureaux are women. That shows not only that women have traditionally been paid less than men, but that they have been in jobs that are more vulnerable to exploitation.
  The profile of clients by age also highlights the fact that a disproportionately large number of people aged between 18 and 21 have come forward. They comprise approximately 17 per cent. of those who go to citizens advice bureaux to discuss the national minimum wage. That is a much higher proportion than the 4.7 per cent. of the population that that age group makes up. It is therefore important to target any information campaign at young people.
  When we consider the sort of jobs that people do, it is noticeable that the largest category of employment about which complaints have been made is hairdressing. I have some sympathy with the hairdressing industry, as it is not likely to get rich off me. I bear the industry no grudge because of that. I am sure that many good employers provide excellent wages and first-class training for their employees, but clearly there are problems and I believe that young people and women workers in that industry ought to be targeted.
  I draw the Minister's attention to other industries that were highlighted by those who presented themselves to bureaux: 13 per cent. referred to the retail industry,

  1163
  9 per cent. to catering and bar work, 8 per cent. to farming and fishing, 6 per cent. each to hotel, cleaning and security guard work, 5 per cent. to care assistant work and 4 per cent. each to taxi work, nannying and nursery nursing. Those figures show that 82 per cent. of those who presented themselves came from a relatively small number of industries—most of us could have identified them beforehand as being from ones in which difficulties were most likely to arise—and emphasise where we need to campaign.
  I want to raise with the Minister a number of issues arising specifically from the citizens advice bureaux trawl. The bureaux identified a number of employers who were failing to pay employees the national minimum wage, to which they were entitled. A 32-year-old client of a north of Scotland CAB was being paid £2.20 an hour—£1.40 below the minimum wage—for working as a nanny. An 18-year-old client of an east of Scotland bureau being paid £2.50 an hour approached his employer about increasing his wage in line with the national minimum wage. The employer simply refused. An 18-year-old client of a west of Scotland bureau working in a nursery approached her employer about the national minimum wage and the employer assured her that the law did not apply to privately run nurseries.
  Individuals in those circumstances lack information and many are vulnerable. A significant number of CAB clients were aware that they were entitled to a higher rate of pay under the new legislation, but they were either dismissed or threatened with dismissal when they tried to negotiate with their employers. A south of Scotland bureau reported that a 22-year-old client was paid £3 an hour. He approached his employer about increasing his pay in line with the minimum wage, but the employer said that he could leave "if he didn't like it." A client of a south of Scotland bureau aged over 22 was dismissed when she asked her employer about increasing her wage in line with the national minimum wage and, to return to hairdressing, an east of Scotland bureau reported that a fully qualified hairdresser aged over 22 was being paid only £2 an hour, which is £1.60 below the minimum wage.
  We need to ensure that information is provided as a great deal of confusion remains—among young workers in particular—about the age at which they qualify for the minimum wage, the conditions that have to be met before they qualify and when they qualify for the £3.20 and £3.60 rates. The fact that that confusion exists is borne out by the cases that are coming forward.
  A north of Scotland CAB reported that an 18-year-old hairdressing apprentice was being paid £1.84 an hour—she wanted to know when she would be entitled to a higher rate under the new legislation—and an 18-year-old client of a north of Scotland CAB being paid £3.30 as an informal trainee wanted to know when he should receive the minimum rate. To be fair to hairdressers, a client who owned a salon went into a north of Scotland bureau to obtain information about the rates that should be paid to staff.
  I am sure that the Minister understands those points about information, but 1 want to touch on abuses. In a number of situations an employee has been redefined as an apprentice or a trainee so that the employer does not have to pay the full rate of the national minimum wage.
  1164
  A 37-year-old client with 18 years experience of bar work was told that she was being paid only £3.26 an hour because she is on a trainee wage for six months. Six months' training was not mentioned when she was recruited and appointed to her present post. A west of Scotland CAB reported that an 18-year-old hairdresser, along with all the other employees of that age, had been asked by her employer to sign a contract classing them as apprentices. If they did so, they would sign away their rights to a higher rate on the national minimum wage. An east of Scotland CAB reported that a man over 50 had been taken on as a labourer on a trial basis. After he had worked 18 hours, he was told that he was unsuitable, paid the equivalent of £1.85 an hour, and when it was queried, the employer said that he did not have to pay the national minimum wage to someone under training.
  There is a whole host of such examples that show the difficulties that are presently being experienced by some of our most vulnerable people in work. We need a publicity campaign on the national minimum wage to inform the public of the new legislation and of their rights. We need enforcement, and if necessary we should name and shame bad employers. I am sure that that policy would be agreed by the vast majority of my parliamentary colleagues. I am particularly glad that this issue has been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who is present this evening.
  The national minimum wage has been the Labour Government's great achievement. We must do as much as we can to ensure that everyone gets the benefit of it. I look forward to hearing the Minister's agreement.
  1.21 am
  The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am delighted to speak about the national minimum wage as it applies in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has recognised, it is overwhelmingly a good news story. It is historic legislation, and has benefited about 100,000 workers in Scotland. More than 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom are entitled to receive the national minimum wage.
  I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the citizens advice bureaux for collecting the information and for gathering the cases on which action should be taken. I fully endorse the sentiment, which was central to his speech, that the more information we have and the more publicity the national minimum wage receives, the more people will benefit from it.
  I shall give some statistics to put the issue in context. I acknowledge that there is a great deal of activity to ensure that the minimum wage is enforced, and to make people aware of their rights. Since February 1999, 155,000 calls have been taken by the national minimum wage telephone helpline across the United Kingdom. There have been more than 4,000 complaints of underpayment since April 1999, 312 of which have been in Scotland.
  Out of the 3,300 visits by national minimum wage inspectors in the United Kingdom to employers who are suspected of underpaying, 294 have been made to employers in Scotland. As a result of those 294 visits, eight enforcement notices have been issued, out of 100 that have been issued UK-wide. Those eight enforcement notices issued in Scotland are only the tip of

  1165
  a significant iceberg. In the vast majority of cases, it is possible to secure compliance by negotiation and by bringing the terms of the national minimum wage legislation to the attention of employers.
  There is a significant pattern of activity in response to the cases that my hon. Friend has mentioned. They are being researched and properly drawn to our attention by the citizens advice bureaux and other organisations. Let me say publicly that the more information we have, the more we can do to ensure that every worker who is entitled to benefit from the national minimum wage can do so. I urge CABs, Members of Parliament, local authorities and anyone who has contact with working people in low-paid occupations to ensure that they are aware of the terms of the legislation, and that they can add to the number of companies—which I have given—that are due to be investigated, and in regard to which, where appropriate, legislation must be enforced.
  The national minimum wage is about social justice and fairness. It is about ending the exploitation of workers. I personally believe, and I think every Labour Member believes, that it is one of the historic achievements of this Labour Government. In his speech celebrating the Labour party's 100th birthday, the Prime Minister identified it as one of the party's four most significant achievements, along with the vote, the national health service and universal education.
  The establishment of a national minimum wage has been talked about for most of those 100 years, but it took this Labour Government to deliver it. I think most people who understand the issue recognise that, while the level of the wage is open to discussion and dispute—and can be increased, as is now happening—it is the principle that is of historic significance, and that has been delivered by this Labour Government with no help from any other quarter of the House.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate the benefits that the national minimum wage legislation has brought to low-paid workers, and to business throughout Scotland. It is now generally acknowledged that the minimum wage has been successfully introduced, and has brought substantial benefits to some 100,000 workers and their families. We are talking not just about employees, but about households. The minimum wage has been particularly important to women and part-time workers; and, contrary to the scare stories that we heard from Conservative Members before the general election, its introduction was achieved without the imposition of undue burdens on business, or an adverse impact on employment or the economy as a whole. Rogues have been brought to heel, to the benefit of employers who were already paying decent wages.
  Both employers and workers have adjusted well to the introduction of the minimum wage. Small businesses have been most affected, but have managed the transition most successfully. Peter Agar, deputy director-general of the CBI, recently described the minimum wage as a model of how to introduce new regulations.
  With the national minimum wage and our in-work benefit reforms, we now have the means to eradicate the worst excesses of low pay, and thereby to provide greater decency in the workplace. We are doing that in a way that ensures that there are the jobs necessary to provide the wages in the first place. Indeed, jobs are being created—especially in the service sector, to which my hon. Friend
  1166
  referred and in which the national minimum wage has the greatest impact. Unemployment is falling, and pay settlements are remaining moderate.
  Estimates show that since the introduction of the minimum wage, employment in Scotland has increased by some 23,000, or 1 per cent. Since the March-May quarter, Scotland's employment performance in percentage terms has been better than that of the United Kingdom as a whole: in the UK, employment has increased by 0.8 per cent. over the same period.
  Together with the Government's reforms of tax and benefit arrangements, the national minimum wage forms the cornerstone of our police to make work pay. It is also part of our commitment to a modern knowledge-based economy that promotes competitiveness through the introduction of minimum standards in the workplace. By setting a floor below which pay must not fall, the minimum wage prevents unscrupulous employers from paying poverty wages as a means to undercut their competitors in terms of price.
  Paying very low wages is obviously a shortsighted policy, which is seldom, if ever, successful in the long term. Poverty pay inevitably leads to high staff turnover, high absenteeism, poorly trained staff, low productivity, dissatisfied customers and cancelled orders. That is a recipe for despair, which poverty pay represents, Those are very good reasons, among others, for introducing a national minimum wage.
  Evidence of the widespread support for the national minimum wage can be found in the most surprising quarters. When in government, the Opposition, who, disappointingly, are unrepresented in the Chamber tonight, frequently claimed that the introduction of a minimum wage would lead to the destruction of 2 million jobs. It was fantasy, but it is not long ago that they were making such claims.
  It is now 11 months since the minimum wage was introduced. With increasing employment, as opposed to the increasing unemployment that the Opposition predicted, where are those siren voices now? As we heard recently, they have belatedly joined the bandwagon, agreeing that the minimum wage has had no adverse impact.
  I always said that the real significance of the national minimum wage would be to introduce the minimum standard—the floor under what people could be paid: the decency wage—and that, once it was there, no Government, even the hardest-faced Tory Government, would ever dare reverse the minimum wage legislation. That is why it will be regarded as one of the landmark pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour Government. It cannot be reversed because it is patently socially just.
  As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we have decided to increase the main national minimum wage to £3.70 per hour in October and the young workers' rate to £3.20 in June. Those increases were recommended in the first report of the Low Pay Commission, alongside its recommendations for the initial rates. Remember the importance of the commission. The minimum wage is not something that the Government set and decide on internally. We rely heavily on the commission's advice. It confirmed its belief that the necessary conditions exist for the increase to be introduced. The Government agree with that assessment.

  1167
  The economy continues to work extremely well and we have managed to hold down inflation. The new adult rate provides fairness in terms of retaining the value of the minimum wage. However, we are exercising some caution in making the change to the adult workers' rate in October, rather than June, crucially allowing business plenty of time to adjust. The increase for young workers aged 18 to 21 has been known about for some two years and will go ahead in June.
  Beyond those increases, we have made no decisions about future changes to the minimum wage rates. What we have done is to ask the commission to continue monitoring the minimum wage and to produce a further report by July 2001. The new report will include the commission's view on whether there is a case for further increasing the minimum wage and, if so, by how much. Any further decisions will be taken in the light of its report, taking account of the prevailing economic circumstances. Both the Government and the commission have said from the outset that that is a better approach than any form of automatic annual uprating mechanism.
  The commission said that the Inland Revenue's national minimum wage inspectors are operating successfully. The Government wholeheartedly endorse that view, not least in Scotland. Just how effectively the inspectors are working is perhaps best illustrated by a recent well-publicised case involving a group of Thai workers at an electronics company in Greenock. The case came to light following a letter to the Department of Trade and Industry from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who drew attention to what was going on at that workplace.
  Minimum wage inspectors ensured that the employer, who is based in Thailand, paid the £12,000 arrears of wages owed to those workers. That has been done following a tribunal case, which received a fair and welcome amount of publicity. That is all to the good. We want employers to know that our inspectors mean business.
  The inspectors' influence clearly extends far beyond our shores. That was an important case, involving different subsidiaries of a large international company. Its resolution sends out a powerful message to employers and to the low paid—that there is no hiding place for an employer who acts unlawfully and fails to pay the national minimum wage to its workers. All workers in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom are entitled to the minimum wage, even if they are overseas workers working here for an overseas company. I hope that that is one of the messages that will come out of this debate.
  It is very important—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok and others will help to draw attention to it—that employees in low-paid industries, whether they are manufacturing or service industries, should be aware of the national minimum wage telephone helpline. The helpline provides practical advice in the application of the minimum wage, and it is a focal point for complaints of underpayment.
  The Inland Revenue's inspectors have already followed up 320 complaints in Scotland and, as I said, issued eight enforcement notices there. The figures for the United Kingdom are 4,000 and 100 respectively. Scotland is certainly not at the top of the league in non-compliance.
  1168
  We should take some satisfaction from the negative fact that non-compliance with the minimum wage in other parts of the United Kingdom is more extensive.
  The figures are important: 320 complaints, almost 300 visits by national minimum wage inspectors and eight enforcement notices. It is vital that we should realise that, although inspectors have recovered in formal action against employers more than £750,000 in underpayments to United Kingdom workers, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Many low-paid workers receive the correct money after a simple inquiry to the helpline without any formal action. We cannot, of course, calculate how much is involved.
  A debate such as this one, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok, serves the purpose of sending out to low-paid workers the very strong message that, if they are not receiving the national minimum wage, they should telephone the helpline, and that that will lead to implementation of the legislation. As I said, there is no hiding place from the national minimum wage, and—case by case, and telephone call by telephone call—we are tracking down those employers who continue, quite irrationally and improperly, to offend against the national minimum wage legislation. We are forcing them to pay up.
  Our publicity campaigns, in spring and autumn 1999, have significantly raised the level of awareness of the minimum wage and resulted in many workers being paid their statutory entitlement. Prevention is better than cure. As I said, I hope that the message going out today is that we are very serious about ensuring that every employee who is entitled to the national minimum wage receives it.
  Independent surveys, including those undertaken by Reed Personnel Services and Incomes Data Services, indicate that implementation has been remarkably successful and that most employers agree with the policy and are compliant. That is an important point. When we talk about the rogue employers—those whom my hon. Friend referred to as delinquent in this matter—we are talking about a very small minority. The vast majority of employers, and all sensible employers, recognise that the national minimum wage is a good provision which works in their interests as well as those of those whom they employ.
  There is little or no evidence of higher costs feeding into higher prices, and there have been few signs of any demands for the restoration of pay differentials. The surveys also found little evidence of any negative employment effect. In the past year, staff levels in smaller firms have increased by 11 per cent., and staff turnover has decreased in traditionally low-paying industries, with little evidence of significant job losses.
  Even the British Chambers of Commerce survey, which was reported to have found extensive adverse effects, showed that almost 80 per cent. of all respondents thought that the current rates of the national minimum wage were about right. Adair Turner, when he was director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said that the national minimum wage had been set at a prudent level that avoided pricing workers out of jobs. The CBI is also on record as finding little evidence of any negative impact on inflation.

  1169
  The national minimum wage legislation is a piece of legislation in which all Labour Members can take pride and satisfaction. It is working well and it is being implemented and enforced. Rogue employers are being brought to heel and every case that is reported to us is thoroughly investigated. The minimum wage is enforced as a result. All that is a cause for satisfaction.
  My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to some occupations in which the national minimum wage is particularly necessary and in which additional enforcement measures are still needed. I assure him that, as a result of this debate, I will make sure that any case
  1170
  from those sectors that is drawn to our attention is investigated and that enforcement is carried out as necessary.
  In Scotland, we recognise that, on the ground of social justice, the legislation was necessary in those areas of the economy that were subject to low pay. It is welcome as an excellent piece of Labour legislation of which we can all be proud.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Two o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Exchange Rate
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.30 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I asked for this debate today, which I am delighted to have got, as I want to draw attention to the fact that the pound is grossly over-valued, especially against European currencies. Given that the euro has been falling, I want to argue that the pound's over-valuation is having a deeply damaging effect on our manufacturing industry. It is also damaging our regions, especially the north and the midlands.
I want to argue also that manufacturing is certain to lose jobs and to shrink as a result of policies that have been pursued for six years now. That is how long the pound has been over-valued, and it is only now reaching what might be hoped to be its peak. Unless the Government act, investment decisions will be taken that will shift investment away from this country. Jobs will be lost, and the capacity that is closed will never be opened again.
The Government must not wring their hands, as they have done for two and half years. They have been saying that nothing can be done, but now they must do something. That is the burden of my song today, Sir Alan.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. "Mr. Deputy Speaker" is the correct form of address.
Mr. Mitchell: I apologise for starting on a bum note, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, that should not undermine the brilliance of the song, nor the beauty of the words.
The pound is undoubtedly at an excessively high level. In the European exchange rate mechanism, a pound was worth DM2.95. That very high level had disastrous consequences for British industry, but the pound has been as high as DM3.27. It is now slightly lower, although the euro fell again yesterday, so the pound's level against the deutschmark may have risen slightly.
By any account, sterling's over-valuation will damage manufacturing. Estimates of its over-valuation vary, but I put it at about 30 per cent., or perhaps a little more. The Institute of Directors puts it at 15 per cent., but that was before the pound went over DM3. The Confederation of British Industry also agrees that the pounds is over-valued.
Why is that over-valuation happening? The Bank of England does not appear to know, and changes its opinion fairly regularly. However, the pound is over-valued because Britain is becoming—or has become—a rentier nation. We have invested massively overseas, just as the rest of the world has invested in this country.
164WH
The problem is that the return on our investment overseas is about £15 billion a year greater than the return for foreign investors on their investments in Britain. We do better with our investments overseas than do people from overseas who invest in this country. The dividends and profits come to this country, get translated into sterling and thereby keep the pound's value high. The same thing happened at the end of the 19th century, when we were on the gold standard.
The second factor is that the euro has fallen in value. I believe that it has been managed down as part of a competitive devaluation designed to kick-start the European economies. The other possibility is that the euro has fallen because it is a monstrous, unlikely beast that was never going to work anyway. However, I leave that for the nation to judge—it is not part of my song today. I honestly do not know what the answer is, although I suspect that it is being managed down. Those in charge of the euro want the European economies, and especially Germany's, to be more competitive. They therefore need the boost that an undervalued exchange rate gives to the manufacturing economy. They have achieved that, and German industry has benefited greatly.
The third and most important factor is that our interest rates are high, in real terms and in historic real terms. They are nearly double European rates. It is impossible for manufacturing to compete effectively in what is now a single market with very intense competition when we have interest rates double those of our nearest competitors. How on earth can it be expected to compete in a race against very powerful competitors when it has a ball and chain around each ankle—one that is called high interest rates, and the other called over-valuation, which is the consequence of those high interest rates? For some reason, Britain expects the economics of outward bound courses to have a beneficial and stimulating effect on our manufacturing. In contrast, other countries compete more effectively.
Our interest rates are high. The world is awash with growing money flows, due to uncertainties in south-east Asia and about the euro. Inevitably, that money gets parked here because it can earn high rates of interest. It can also profit from the possibility it has been a probability over the past few years—of an appreciation in the exchange rate. Naturally, therefore, this country is attractive to all the money washing around the world.
We are paying the funny-money manipulators to bring that money here and to keep it here. That is doing us great damage. The City might do well out of it, but the rest of the economy does very badly. When sterling is bought and the funny money is parked here, the pound appreciates.
I believe that the Bank of England is using overvaluation of the exchange rate as its only weapon against inflation. The psychology works as follows: over-valuation makes imports, foreign holidays and everything that is imported cheap, and therefore reduces the cost of living, even though it destroys jobs in this country. The second element to be considered is that, in order to compete in a race while hampered with overvaluation, British producers cut back on costs. When they cannot agree wage increases, they shed jobs and put

165WH
the pressure on labour. It is assumed that the result of all that is that inflation will be defeated, albeit at the expense of our long-term industrial survival.
Inflation is no longer the serious problem that it was in the 1970s. The world is awash with excess capacity in manufacturing. The power of labour has been broken. There is an air of insecurity because people are frightened for their jobs, and competition is now more intense than it has ever been. For those reasons, inflation is no longer the problem that it used to be, but we are fighting it with the monetarist weapons of the 1920s. We appear to believe that disciplines must be imposed on British manufacturing that other countries' industries do not have to bear. In essence, we have aimed the monetarist musket right at the heart of British industry.
If the Bank of England wants high interest rates when inflation is low and sterling is high, what will happen to interest rates when sterling comes down in value, as it is bound to do at some stage? The Bank of England will have to push interest rates ever higher in order to maintain sterling's value, because it will fear the inflationary consequences of a fall in that value.
I think that that fear is unrealistic, but the Bank of England's mentality is such that, having sustained rates at high levels during a benign period when inflation has been pretty well dead, it would have no alternative but to increase rates to prevent a fall in sterling's value that it—the Bank—created in the first place. That folly would ruin British manufacturing. The Tory Government acted in the same way between 1979 and 1982, and between 1989 and 1992. Both those periods of deflation were ended only by falls in the exchange rate. Massive recessions followed on both occasions, and the same policy would result in damaging declines now.
The Labour Government need growth to deliver their promises to the people. C. A. Crosland argued that the essence of socialism was economic growth, as that enabled the redistribution of wealth and improved public spending that made society better for working people. However, this Government, who are supposed to share that ideology, are undermining redistribution and destroying growth. The consequences are certain to be the same as in the two previous, and unnecessary deflations, that I mentioned earlier.
The pound's over-valuation hits manufacturing directly. Manufacturing is on the front line of intense international competition on price. Price is the central competitive factor—people say that it might be the improvement of models, but everything has its price. Manufacturing is faced with increased prices through no fault of its own, because of the exchange rate. The exchange rate translates all our costs into foreign currencies when the goods are sold, meaning that our costs are far too high. They have appreciated by more than 30 per cent. over the past six years because of the exchange rate. Manufacturing has done its best to cut costs. It has made itself very efficient and is now extremely productive, but this burden of costs has been imposed on it as a kind of outward bound course mentality.
There is nothing that manufacturing can do about this. It is exhorted to hold wages down. Even if it holds down wages permanently, cuts wages and every cost
166WH
available, it cannot cut costs by more than perhaps 2 per cent. a year. Yet the costs in foreign exchange terms have been increased by 30 per cent. It is a hurdle that manufacturing cannot jump.
The evidence of the effects of increased costs can be seen all around. It has happened near Grimsby. Fisons is just closing its fertiliser plant in the neighbouring constituency of Cleethorpes, with the loss of 250 jobs. It is concentrating production in Europe because it is cheaper to produce there at this level of over-valuation. Multinationals usually have a choice of having plants in this country, in other European countries or outside Europe. Fertiliser companies are facing difficulties because of the agricultural depression so, given that choice, they will close the plant that is the least competitive and, given our exchange rate, that plant is, ipso facto, inevitably in Britain.
The same is happening to the agricultural and chemical industries. They all tell me that the pound is not hurting them, it is crucifying them. Something must be done about it. The pig protest outside this House is because our costs are so much higher, thanks to the exchange rate. There are other factors as well, but the burdens of agriculture are largely due to the exchange rate.
It is happening in the steel industry. I have a statement that I asked for from the UK Steel Association. It says that 85 per cent. of all the steel produced in the United Kingdom is sold in the European Union single market. Price is key here and affects the UK markets as well as export sales. The UK steel industry exports half of all it produces. More than 70 per cent. of those exports go to mainland Europe. UK steel exports, however, fell 14 per cent. in 1999. The association says:
In 1999, UK steel companies would have realised an extra £300 million a year or £25 million a month on their exports, to underpin UK jobs, if the Sterling/euro exchange rate had remained stable throughout the year instead of hardening by 12 per cent … In the past 20 years, UK steelmakers have improved productivity nearly five-fold. That is 10 per cent. a year, nearly three times better than UK manufacturing as a whole … Now, in euro terms, UK wages have increased by one third in the last three years, destroying years of wage restraint, throwing away productivity gains … The strong pound is making it cheaper to source from Euroland. Imported components for new cars are now 72 per cent., fully 10 per cent. up on three years ago.
Why? Because sterling is over-valued, and it is cheaper to import components from Europe. The UK Steel Association says that manufacturing investment is now down 17 per cent. on a year ago. It shows that plant is not being renewed and new technologies are not being adopted.
The effect of the exchange rate on steel is echoed by Corus whose chairman, Sir Brian Moffat, warned Members of Parliament when he spoke here:
Manufacturing industry in the UK is fighting for its very existence and will continue to do so. It is extremely efficient but the impact of the continued strengthening of the pound on its cost base is remorselessly undercutting its competitiveness … The facts are that profits are in decline and already well below the levels needed to provide necessary future investment, never mind reward shareholders.
I requested opinions from several organisations. The Engineering Employers Federation says:
Of particular concern is the impact the strength of sterling is having on confidence and investment plans. The EEF's latest survey shows that investment plans have been cut back for the sixth consecutive quarter and there has been no let up in the rate of decline.

167WH
Nissan says:
The implications of Sterling continuing at its present level against the Euro are being grossly underestimated and are poorly understood. Should the present circumstances continue unchecked, the UK's manufacturing exporters, their export markets and our domestic markets, are at grave risk.
Nissan says that production has been increasing in the UK. It says, however:
The position of Nissan in Sunderland is particularly vulnerable, exporting as we do, 75 per cent. of our production—mostly into the heartland of our competitors in continental Europe. Ask any of our competitors in France, Germany or Italy what they think of the current Euro/Sterling relationship—they cannot believe their good fortune … Nissan currently buys 70 per cent. of its total European component spend from UK suppliers—a policy which adds to the burden of competing profitably overseas. The UK supply base must compete …
The implication is that UK suppliers will be cut out and that Nissan will buy its supplies from Europe.
That is the story from a clutch of manufacturers. It is repeated everywhere. Raleigh Bicycles closes production in Nottingham and transfers it to south-east Asia. Ford sheds 5,000 jobs at Dagenham and transfers them to Europe. Marks & Spencer cuts down on its purchases in this country, with devastating damage to textile towns in Lancashire, as all my colleagues representing Lancashire constituencies complain, because it is cheaper to have the same goods produced in Morocco or Sri Lanka and import them here. More is being done overseas; more components are being imported, and jobs in this country are going. Long-term investment decisions are being taken. As Bruce Springsteen sings in the immortal "My Home Town", "The foreman said these jobs are going, boys, and they ain't coming back". Investment decisions taken now will affect employment and production in this country for another decade at least. Those decisions are being taken against this country.
I think that the way in which every piece of sewage that can be mustered is being thrown at Ken Livingstone is an atrocious act on the part of the Labour party, which will alienate public opinion. We are now told that there is a Livingstone effect—that the threat of Ken Livingstone as mayor will stop businesses coming to London. There is already an Eddie George effect, and if I were not such a loyal party member, I would call it a Gordon Brown effect.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the way in which we address fellow Members of the House—not directly by name.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us just call it the Eddie George effect—it is much safer that way. It puts investing companies off this country, and the decisions have already been made.
German manufacturers in this country, in particular, say that the solution to our problems is to join the euro. It is not, because we cannot join the euro at this exchange rate or anything like it. That would set it in concrete and make it permanent. The exchange rate operating when we join will have to be that maintained for two years before entry. It is impossible to join the euro at this exchange rate, and people arguing for that are so devoted to Europe that they have lost their sanity or they are Liberal Democrats. Both want euro entry
168WH
now, which is a folly. When companies say that we should join the euro, they are really saying, "We are not competitive at this exchange rate. Do something about it." That is the real message.
The consequences are that imports are going up and exports are falling, and the balance of trade is turning sour. It is saved only by oil. That trend will affect a dismaying proportion of our gross national product if it continues at this rate, and there is nothing to stop it. We will build up a deficit, and manufacturing and jobs will be hit just as we are in the run-up to an election in May 2001. I had better tell the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat?Amory), before he slip outs to make preparations, that we are making those preparations for him with this economic policy.
The effects have not hit us before because the most vulnerable firms and industries disappeared in the two previous deflations, and there has been a credit expansion to keep up domestic demand, but it is hitting the fundamentals of production, exports and our position in the world. We have been here before, and it is distressing to hear the same things being said. I hope that the Minister will not say the same again today. We have been having these debates for some time, and Ministers' replies could have been enunciated by Conservative Ministers in the previous two deflations.
We are told that industry is learning to live with the strong pound; well, it is certainly learning to die with the strong pound. It is a truism to say that our existing industry is competitive—the fact that it has survived means that it is competitive. That view makes no allowance for the new industries that are developing or the old industries that we have lost; nor does it deal with the means of survival.
Industry is surviving by exporting; it is hanging on, often without profit, as firms all over the country have told me, just to keep its market share. It is having to cut down on everything—investment, research, design and innovation—just to survive. That formula is uncompetitive in the long term, but it leads to short-term survival. In the drought in the 1970s, people told us that the great trees had survived, and we all marvelled at that feat, but shortly afterwards the trees collapsed one after the other. That is the position of British manufacturing.
We are told that the situation is good discipline for British industry because it will make it competitive, and that is Government policy. We are preaching competitiveness, investment and upgrading skills. All that is desirable, but useless in the face of this over-valuation, because firms cannot cut costs enough to overcome that hurdle. We look fairly silly preaching the need for a cost-cutting, burden-shedding, low-wage economy to European competitors who are now doing well because of their undervaluation while our manufacturing is being crucified by our over-valuation. I cannot understand that approach.
We are told that the pound will come down. The Bank of England clearly does not know what is going to happen. I read from the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee's last meeting:
Committee members differed in their preferred assumptions for the path of sterling's effective exchange rate … Some preferred to assume a constant nominal exchange rate; some others preferred a depreciation in line with interest rate differentials … The assumption used in the best collective projections was half way between the two.

169WH
It split the difference between the status quo and obvious nonsense—the idea that the exchange rate will decline—to get the projected rate. That is rubbish because the exchange rate has gone up.
The Bank of England does not know what is happening. It sits there in its ivory tower, terrified at the prospect of house price increases in the south-east, where the members of the MPC live, and wage increases in the City, where most of them mix and from where they draw their ideology, and damages the rest of the country by putting up interest rates.
We are intermittently told by Ministers that the pound will come down. I have been told that several times in correspondence. Why does it not come down? When will it come down? What will make it come down? Each time we are told that it will come down, it goes up. That means that the bleeding will continue.
We are told, finally, that there is nothing that we can do, which is an abdication and an obvious nonsense. The pound is a market-clearing mechanism; it must clear markets at a level that allows us to balance our trade in conditions of growth and full employment. It is being deliberately held up to fight inflation even though inflation is no threat. The resources of civilisation are not exhausted; it is no use us just wringing our hands and saying that there is nothing we can do. We can talk the pound down. If the Government and the Bank said that they wanted the pound to come down substantially, that would help to weaken confidence and bring the pound down.
We can reduce interest rates to the European level. Why should they be double those in Europe? We can change the terms of reference of the Bank of England—in my view they were always a folly—because they should certainly take account of employment, and of exchange rates and growth. We could change the targets. We could sell sterling on a scale that will bring it down. Why do we not do that?
We could buy euros. The European Union would regard that as a big favour. That would push up the euro and bring down sterling. Gerry Haltham, the former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, who now works for Norwich Union, has suggested a scheme whereby we raise £20 billion in public debt. British Government 20-year bonds pay less than 5 per cent., so we should use that £20 billion to buy euros and invest in European public debt.
In France, Italy and Holland, such debt pays a full percentage point more than our public debt, so if we invested £20 billion raised on British public debt, over 20 years we would get £200 million a year for the British taxpayer and the appreciation that will eventually happen when the euro begins to rise, and we would bring down the pound. Why are we not thinking about such sensible methods to solve the problem? I have suggested that to Ministers and the Bank of England.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend sing such high praises for the euro. That needs to be hosannaed around our country. Is he aware that although the Treasury may have had its fingers burned on gold sales and may be a little nervous of Mr. Haltham's idea, Thomas Cook reports that the
170WH
British people are buying all their holiday money now because they are ahead of policy makers in thinking that in six months, when the summer holiday season starts, the pound will not be worth as much as it is today? He should follow the instincts of the good British people.
Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend heard me singing the praises of the euro, there is something wrong with the acoustics of the Room, which I know are a problem. I would not dream of doing that. I was trying to help the euro in its hour of need by suggesting that we should buy that poor, timid, cowering creature and give it a lifeline to get it up so that we can get down sterling, which is the main problem. My hon. Friend says that people are buying their holiday currency early and that is another argument that the pound will come down, but it is staying up and it will continue to do so with these interest rates.
All the weapons that I have described are available to the Bank of England. It has even considered intervention. Good heavens—what a lot of progress has been made in the two and a half years since the Bank was given its powers. Those weapons are available to the Government. It is easier to intervene to get rates down than to keep them up, as we usually do. Why do not we intervene? It is crucial that we get sterling down to achieve growth.
Since the 1970s, our growth has been 2 per cent. a year, which is pathetic. The rest of the industrial world has had nearly 4 per cent. growth, and that gap is widening. Our manufacturing is weaker, and productivity growth comes only from manufacturing, not from services. The big productivity gains are all made in manufacturing. South Korea has had a cumulative annual growth rate of 14 per cent. because of its expansion in manufacturing. Here, if productivity from services increases at all, it is only by 2 per cent. Yet, we have been shifted from a manufacturing to a service economy, in which growth will be low and the motor of our economy, which provides two thirds of exports. will suffer, reducing the power and capacity to serve the nation, pay our way in the world and attract the necessary investment to sustain such power and capacity.
The only way to achieve higher growth in our economy is to get the exchange rate down to a point where our cost base becomes competitive with the rest of the advanced world. Achieving higher growth is easily done; it requires only a substantial fall in the exchange rate. That is the way to do it, rather than watching the exchange rate go up and up, wringing our hands, saying in the most unsocialist tradition that I know, "There is nothing that we can do against these brute economic forces." There is; and when we do it, we will grow. Unless we do it, we shall be damaged.
I therefore hope that the Government will recognise that something must be done and that there are ways of tackling the problem. I hope that they will get the message from the cries of pain around the country, if not from this crowded Chamber: do something about the problem!
10.1 am
Mr. Denis MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on obtaining this debate and on a speech

171WH
that I know will be read with great sympathy in the steel and other manufacturing and farming communities of our country. Since I shall refer briefly to steel, I should declare at the outset my usual interest in any debate that touches on the industry: a relationship with the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the main steel trade union, and 25 shares in Corus, the dividend from which, I am afraid, is less than the price of a McDonald's hamburger, but at least keeps me in touch with what the company is up to.
My hon. Friend has raised the issue at an appropriate moment, but we must set the specific problem of the exchange rate in a broader context. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has undertaken remarkably successful management of the economy, with levels of stability, growth and job creation that have not been seen for many years. The key strategic decisions and guidelines have been laid down. I welcome independence for the Monetary Policy Committee, control of Government spending and sensible tax policy, which, while all other centre-left Governments of Europe are cutting taxes, I hope the Chancellor will follow in his Budget.
However, there is growing and real concern about the exchange rate, particularly in the steel industry which is so vital to my constituency. All steel prices are posted in deutschmarks—today, of course, we should say euros—for sale across the European Union and further afield, just as oil prices are posted in dollars. The steel industry in our country cannot long survive if it must export in prices that can no longer compete with producers in Ireland—there are some—and on mainland Europe.
Like a Darth Vader who has not been killed by the forces of light, there is one remaining dark and malicious leftover from the boom-and-bust economy that we associate with the Tories: the over-valuation of sterling, which becomes more acute as oil prices harden at the spectre of sterling again becoming a petrocurrency, as it did in the early 1980s, and inflicting yet more damage on manufacturing.
It is surprising that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor, keeps his name as a friend of the euro, since the biggest percentage surge in the pound's value in recent years—from DM2.15 in May 1996 to DM2.70 in May 1997 occurred during the last 12 months of his office. I excuse the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who will speak for the Conservative party in this debate, from such criticism because he wisely resigned just as the pound was about to shoot up. I raised the issue again and again on the Floor of the House, begging the then Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to take some remedial action on sterling, but they did nothing.
The Tory-initiated policy of an over-valued pound has, more than any other factor, distanced the UK from the euro and begun the process of the crunch on exports and manufacturing, which has cost so many jobs and led in the steel industry to great worry about plants and employment.
The over-valuation of sterling against the real weight of the UK economy—this is important—may be as high as 30 per cent., as the International Monetary Fund recently suggested, and is certainly 15 per cent., as most commentators agree. Since 1996, according to analysis
172WH
done for me by the House of Commons Library, sterling has appreciated by 10 per cent. against the dollar and 30 per cent. against the ecu—now the euro. That is having a major negative impact on the economy in four areas.
Over-valuation is slowing down the rate of exports, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out; it is sucking in imports as demand grows; it is encouraging massive flows of capital overseas, because for every pound that comes into the UK, £2.50 to £3 leaves it in money generated in Britain; and it is hitting disproportionately regions to the north of the M25.
The go-go regions of the UK economy—London, the south-east and what I call M25-land—might generate about 40 per cent. of the UK economy, but they run a major balance of trade deficit. In contrast, Yorkshire, the north-west, the north-east and the midlands run a much smaller part of the UK economy and a balance of trade surplus. Therefore, the north earns Britain's money and the south spends it. There is resentment about that unfairness.
Let us not forget the extent to which the UK has been dragged more and more out of line with our main markets in Europe, where we sell most of what we produce, whether as goods or services. In the eurozone, exchange rate problems have been eliminated and policy makers have been able to focus on much tougher decisions about investment, training and productivity, as well as cutting taxes and undertaking the other reforms called for by the Prime Minister to get their economies going again.
Let us not forget that the UK is ranked 10th in terms of gross domestic product per head in the eurozone. We may be the world's fifth or sixth biggest economy—a statistic often rolled out—but in the world league table of purchasing power parities, we have been stuck at 18th for a quarter of a century, well beneath most of our EU partners. Anyone who represents a constituency in the north, as my hon. Friend does, knows the disparities between poverty, deprivation and social exclusion in such areas and in our European partner countries.
There are other insidious effects of an over-valued pound. First, when the pound buys FF11 or 3,000 lire, there is a kind of national cockiness. A strong pound seems to prove that we have swallowed the Viagra and solved our economic problems. For millions of holiday makers, the high pound does mean cheaper margaritas and paellas than ever before. However, for not just our steelworks and manufacturing but our farmers, who are crippled by it, our tourism industry, which suffers from people staying away except perhaps, from spending their money in the rich hotels in London, and our architects, who are trying to sell their products, services and talents, the future is bleak.
The second insidious effect arises from the dependency on an over-valued sterling controlling inflation and improving productivity. We are, and always have been, a great importing nation. The UK imports nearly a quarter of its GDP—22 per cent. in 1998—compared with just 11 per cent. in the United States, which is why the endless Tory refrain that we should couple ourselves with America cannot make sense. Exchange rate variables are far more important to Britain than to America, so the cheaper that we can buy from overseas, the lower the prices at home and the lower costs that shape inflation.

173WH
In addition, the first response of firms faced with a high pound is to lay off staff; hence, the scores of thousands of jobs lost in manufacturing—160,000 since 1996, at the last count—and the great worries of the steel and other exporting industries. Technically, if the work force are slashed and output is maintained, productivity improves—that is a mathematical certainty. However, in my judgment, improved productivity should mean more output from the same number of workers, not the same output from fewer workers, which is what currently happens. The pattern we are witnessing is one of cuts in investment in capital stock, because exports stall and better returns on capital are found as the high pound allows profitable investment overseas.
The third insidious effect of a high currency is like that of any drug—the high never lasts. We have a booming pound which might continue to defy the laws of currency gravity for a while longer, but sooner or later the markets, with their usual adulterous infidelity, will fall for another currency; the pound will be spurned and thrown to one side, and its value will start to fall. The key tasks facing policy makers—here I address my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—is to prepare both public opinion and decision takers for the new thinking that will be needed when the pound trades at a level commensurate with the true weight of the UK economy.
What is certain is that those who make key decisions will always lag behind events. By nature, I am a strong currency man, but a strong currency should be a byproduct of a strong economy. The deutschmark and the Swiss franc hardened over the years as the German and Swiss economies gained in strength. A strong currency does not create a strong economy; rather, the reverse is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby did not use the word "devaluation", but I got the impression that he was calling for the pound's value to be brought down rather suddenly. My view is that, if there is a decline, it must be managed and gentle.
To any of those hon. Members who are interested in the exchange rate, I recommend a remarkable new book that I obtained from the Library. The book's author is the curator of coins at the Ashmolean museum in Oxford, Mr. Nicholas Mayhew, and its title is "Sterling: the Rise and Fall of a Currency". His book more than supplies the historical perspective that is lacking in our debates: it covers 1,000 years of sterling. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a man who proudly wears the symbol of sterling on his lapel, will be interested in reading that book.
In the matter of sterling, there is nothing new under the sun. The repeated sterling shocks experienced by the UK, with over-cockiness followed by over-correction, dance over the centuries, and recent experience reflects the same pattern. In the lifetime of most Members of Parliament, sterling has been one of the most rollercoaster currencies of any mature democratic economy.
The Americans have not made our mistake. Since the Plaza accord of the mid-1980s, the dollar has been relatively stable. That has helped to promote American exports: that part of American GDP taken by exports has significantly increased over the past 10 years because dollar trading has been relatively stable, despite
174WH
significant shocks originating in south-east Asia. The dollar does not have the up-and-down rollercoaster history that the pound sterling has had over the past 20 years.
Mr. Mitchell: Since the 1970s, we have lived in a world of floating exchange rates, in which sterling has been held at unnaturally and uncompetitively high levels by high interest rates in our economy. As a result, since the early 1970s, British manufacturing prices have increased 40 per cent. over those of our competitors. That is the new feature of the debate. The dollar might have been stable in the 1990s, but between 1985 and 1990, it fell by almost 50 per cent.
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend appears to accept my argument. Even in the world of floating currencies that has prevailed since the end of the Bretton Woods era in 1973, it has been possible to maintain stability. After the Plaza and Louvre accords, which brought down the dollar's value, the dollar has been relatively stable whereas sterling has not. In addition, since the era of the exchange rate mechanism and with the introduction of the euro, the main European economies have opted for currency stability against each other, as can be seen in the external exchange rates between France and Germany, Ireland and Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. By contrast, the pound sterling has peaked and troughed with all the stability of a ping-pong ball on a jet of water at a fun fair.
Hansard, alas, does not print charts, graphs or photographs, but the House of Commons Library produced a graph for me that shows sterling against the ecu now the euro—and the dollar since 1996. In both cases, we see up-and-down movements that are the result of mismanagement or non-management of the exchange rate. Contrary to the belief expressed by some of my friends inside and outside the House that the fault lies entirely with the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, the evidence is that interest rate movements have not had a direct impact—there is no cause-andeffect link.
There is a problem with the MPC, which is that no member of it has direct experience of manufacturing, or the economy beyond the M25 region, or the ivory towers of Oxbridge and the London school of economics. I urge the Chancellor to ensure that, in future, the membership of the MPC reflects a wider range of experience. I hope that the MPC will listen to our debate and decide this afternoon not to put up interest rates.
I am sure that the Economic Secretary will point out that, thanks to growth in the United States and to the welcome return to growth of the Asian economies, UK manufacturing and exports are recovering, albeit from a very low base. I would answer that, when one falls into a hole, one has to climb upwards to get out, as the graphs show. However, real, sustained and stable growth is not possible with an over-valued currency.
Our first task is to admit that there is a problem; only when we have admitted that can we start to discuss solutions. Therefore, I welcome the discussion that took place at the MPC's most recent meeting. Our need is not so much for an unyielding policy on sterling as for the intellectual and political honesty to admit that we have

175WH
a serious problem. We need a new policy mix that is aimed at making our currency correspond to our economy's real strengths and is as supportive of the exporting economy as it is beneficial to the importing economy.
It would be helpful if the myriad organisations representing the industrial and exporting sectors could unite and speak with one voice. There is a low-level, haphazard whine emitted by the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the UK Steel Association and trade bodies representing other exporters, but the sum of their justified complaints about sterling is not the convincing and strong voice that is needed to be influential in the public policy arena. The Institute of Directors, with its obsessive anti-Europeanism, has no locus standi in the matter. Until manufacturers and exporters learn to speak with a united voice, they will not have the clout required to influence policy.
I am close to the trade union movement. Trade unions are quick to protest about sterling's rise, but they need to advance concrete propositions on how to keep down inflation and improve productivity—the two beneficial side effects of a strong currency. The best way to improve productivity so that it is not a zero-sum process is to invest in modernising and renewing capital infrastructure and human skills, and much of the Government's policy on training and life-long learning reflects that fact. Nevertheless, manufacturing investment is falling: today, it is 15 per cent. below its 1990s peak, as manufacturers take what profits they can and invest them elsewhere because the over-valued pound makes exporting less profitable and sucks in cheap imports from Europe that have a 30 per cent. price advantage over equivalents made in Britain.
That problem is made worse by short-sightedness and failure to invest when the money is present. Corus, the former British Steel, is right to complain about loss of profits. However, British Steel was making more than £1 billion profit only three years ago, and last year £800 million was taken from the steel industry pension fund to pay a sweetener to shareholders in the company during the merger with the Dutch Hoogovens company that created Corus. That is £2 billion missing, which was available to British Steel and not used to invest, upgrade and protect against the cyclical rise in sterling that has been on the cards since the irresponsible behaviour of the previous Conservative Government.
Unions must embrace flexibility and partnership and ensure, for example, that there is only one union in each workplace, instead of unions representing different categories of workers, each defending its own pay corner in each company or sector.
Increases in earnings in all three sectors—manufacturing, services and the public sector—are running significantly ahead of inflation. The bonuses paid to City executives in December were so big that they influenced the average earnings data. Those big bonuses push up house prices in the M25 region, to which the MPC responds by raising interest rates, which merely fuels the square mile economy and increases the bonuses, so creating the next round of the vicious circle.
176WH
We need a new fiscal and regional policy mix to warm up the cold bits of the economy suffering from the high pound, and to cool down those overheated parts of the economy which fuel the interest rate rises that help to keep the pound over-valued.
In other economies, notably the United States, there are sub-national levels of government that can take fiscal, planning and labour market decisions which allow much more rapid adaptation to the markets and to economic changes. In the UK, the one-size-fits-all policies laid down by Whitehall are not sufficiently flexible to allow South Yorkshire, for example, to set its sails to the winds of the global economy. Instead, we are steered on bearings that suit the directions in which the M25 region, and often simply the City of London, wish to head. I plead for greater fiscal flexibility and planning devolution.
The other inescapable part of the argument, and my final point, concerns Europe. I shall not rehearse the arguments over the euro. I thought that my hon. Friend was extremely restrained in the part of his speech dealing with that issue.
I predict that in 10 years, we will have, in effect, a single transatlantic currency uniting the great democratic market economies of the 21st century. It will be called the dollar over there and the euro over here. The currencies will co-operate and be stable with each other in order not just to promote trade and growth, but to defend the common democratic values that unite Europe and North America, and to defend the identity of the nation states that make up this great region.
The anti-Europeans want the pound to float between the dollar and the euro—up today and down tomorrow. As long as that is the case, there will be no stability, sustainability or security for British manufacturing and British exporters.
I fully support the Government's five economic tests, but, on the key issue of convergence, the performance of the pound sterling is leading us further away day by day from Europe. Perhaps that is what some of those who take the key decisions on interest rates and other matters that determine the pound's value secretly desire. If so, they should join my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and, I think, the right hon. Member for Wells and proclaim their anti-European faith.
I believe, on the contrary, along with the Prime Minister, that a strong and growing Europe needs its single currency, and that it is in Britain's interest for Europe to grow, create jobs and embrace the reform agenda advanced by the Labour Government. To rule out UK participation in the euro as a matter of principle would be to condemn the pound to a life of instability—now strong, now weak, today over-valued, yesterday or tomorrow devalued, always too hot or too cold for Britain's steel and other manufacturing and exporting industries.
For 10 years, the British people have heard only lies about Europe and propaganda against the euro. Now is the time to start telling the truth. We cannot help steel and manufacturing to prosper with a currency that is out of line with the currencies of our main trading partners, whether it is out of line because of devaluation, as in the mid-1990s, or over-valuation, as at present. We cannot have a boom-and-bust pound and expect to do well in the European and world economy.

177WH
When those who make policy accept that lesson, we will get a currency that serves our nation again. When those who sit in the board rooms and the trade union executives of our land start to raise their voices and heads to tell the truth about Europe and the euro, and face down the lies from the anti-Europeans and from those who say that an over-valued currency does not matter, we can begin to make progress. That way offers some hope for steelworkers in my constituency and in other steel communities of our country who now face a grave period of worry for their jobs and their families.
10.24 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Time is fairly short, so I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
The debate deals with serious issues. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has secured another debate on the subject. It is one to which he returns regularly, almost irrespective of the level of sterling at any given time.
There is significant pressure on manufacturing industry in particular, which is reflected in the balance of trade and is not being addressed by Government. If there is a vacuum in Government economic policy, it is in the area of exchange rate policy above all.
What is the depth of the problem? Both the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) dealt with that at length. In summary, the pound's strength relative to the eurozone is the real story. The yen has fallen against the pound, and the dollar has barely changed over the past few years, but sterling is 15 per cent. higher against the euro than it was when the Government were elected, and 30 per cent. higher than in 1996.
That is directly reflected in the current account balance. The seasonally adjusted current account balance has worsened from a small surplus in May 1997 to a deficit that has got worse month by month since. Total export volumes have been falling since August 1999. The global trade deficit in December was £2.7 billion—the worst on record—and £3.1 billion, excluding oil and erratics. The underlying impact on the economy is far worse.
There is some improvement, as we heard, but it is driven by the Asian and US economies, where the exchange rate issue is not significant. The decline has been almost entirely in the goods sector and in trade with the European Union—in other words, in the most price-sensitive sector, and in relation to the economic zone which is our major goods trading partner and where we have by far the biggest exchange rate problem.
I asked the House of Commons Library to do some research for me. The figures confirm that picture—the widening of the global trade deficit in December to the largest monthly deficit on record, the widening of the deficit in trade excluding oil and erratics, and the deficit in trade and goods up for 1999 as a whole to £26.3 billion from just over £20 billion in 1998.
The non-EU data reveal that the deficit was up in January to £2.4 billion from £2.3 billion, but the underlying deficit, excluding oil and erratic items, fell to
178WH
£1.9 billion in January from £2 billion. The export volume growth figures show exports picking up significantly in the non-EU zone.
We see two different economies working. What is the explanation for that? The exchange rate problem. The consequences are reported day by day in the press long-term significant investment decisions to pull out of purchasing and manufacturing in the UK. We see the major car companies clinging on—but only just—to manufacturing bases. We shall see what BMW's longterm investment plans are for Longbridge, over which there is a big question mark, and what the long-term future is for Halewood and Dagenham. There is a major question mark over whether Ford will retain a manufacturing base at Dagenham.
We know that manufacturers are pulling out of the purchase of UK-sourced components on a huge scale. That is happening not only in car manufacturing, but right across the British economy. We are losing the markets, as well as the manufacturing base. The loss of a market might be corrected in a year or two, with a depreciation, but the loss of a manufacturing base cannot be so easily corrected. That is why the Government's policy is so questionable, as is evident from all the figures relating to the manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing shows little or no growth when other parts of the economy are growing fast. For years, not only months or quarters, there has been a steady quarterly decline in manufacturing investments. There is growth in employment in the economy as a whole, but huge job losses in the manufacturing sector. That has a long-term impact on balance of trade and jobs.
If the Government are serious about pursuing a policy that is based on convergence and joining the euro because it is in Britain's interest, there is no conceivable case for joining at the current exchange rate. That view contradicts the claims of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about Liberal Democrat policy. There is a vacuum at the heart of the Government's policy on joining the euro.
The big unanswered question; the issue that really counts is the rate at which we join. The benefit of membership of the euro is that it provides long-term stability on exchange rates. However, if we join at a rate that is too high at the start, we will experience at least a massive adjustment problem, and arguably, a long-term loss of welcome prosperity for this country. Yet the rate is a criterion that dare not speak its name in Government policy and pronouncement.
We can press the Government for an explanation of what they believe is necessary to achieve the requisite conditions. Liberal Democrats argue that there should be a pro-active policy to achieve them. We believe, like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, that we need to pursue an exchange rate policy that has been worked through. However, the Government do not even mention the problem, let alone a policy that might be pursued to secure an answer.
A question mark has always existed over the position of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. I am not sure what exchange rate the hon. Gentleman would believe to be competitive. However, whatever his view, he has not explained how we would maintain stability. For those who believe that it would be in Britain's interest to join the euro under the right terms—the hon. Member

179WH
for Rotherham and I agree about that—the answer is that we would have stability in the euro, and that we would thus get rid of the current boom-bust exchange rate fluctuation and its attendant job losses. Temporary fluctuations in the exchange rate cause permanent job losses. That could be resolved by membership of the euro.
If that is not the answer, those who argue against joining the euro must devise a policy for exchange rate stability rather than simply claiming that exchange rates are too high.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has made a lot of sense until now, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) at the end of his speech, he is beginning to stray. I do not want us to join the euro; it would be a serious mistake. However, if we join, we must maintain exchange rate stability—preferably at a competitive level—vis-a-vis the euro for two years before we enter. The problem of managing the exchange rate for stability is the hon. Gentleman's problem as well as mine.
Mr. Taylor: I agree that we need a policy for achieving stability. However, the timetable for euro entry means that we will not join tomorrow and there is therefore time to devise a policy. However, the Government should be pro-actively pursuing a policy now. There is a vacuum in the Government's euro policy.
I want to consider what is actually happening, because I do not believe that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has characterised the position correctly. Interest rates do not help, but the position is not fundamentally driven by interest rates, but by sentiment and people gambling on the exchange rate. That is the problem with exchange rates and the reason that they fluctuate so wildly. It is currently believed that tomorrow the exchange rate will be high and therefore it remains high. It is believed that the rate will decrease in the long run, as long-term interest rates show. The markets assume that there will be a fall and also that we will join the euro. However, they do not believe that it will happen tomorrow. Until they believe that, the fall in the exchange rate will not occur.
The sentiment does not already exist because the Government do not state that such a fall is necessary. The Government should take a clearer position of actively arguing the case for low exchange rates and membership of the euro. That would help to create the necessary circumstances for joining. However, the Government do the opposite.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby tries to put the blame on the Monetary Policy Committee, but our knowledge of the MPC suggests that it believes that the exchange rate should be lower. Eddie George spoke at the most recent meeting of the Treasury Committee. He said that all members of the MPC were worried about the strength of the exchange rate and its impact on specific sectors such as manufacturing, and on some regions. That is the argument that I am presenting.
The MPC pursues an interest rate policy that is not designed to hold up sterling, but assumes that the level of sterling is likely to fall. It does not know when that will happen, therefore it pursues an interest rate policy that assumes that it will happen; its members fall out
180WH
about the timing. The minority who believes that the level of sterling will remain as it is, argues for a low interest rate policy. Those who believe that it will fall, argue for tightening interest rates to achieve the inflation pressure that they want.
The Government argue that the economy is adjusting. I believe that they are wrong. In the pre-Budget report, the Government argued that there were signs that the economy had nearly completed its adjustment to high sterling values. Nothing could be further from the truth or potentially more damaging to the economy. I hope that the Minister will deal with that when she responds to the debate.
10.37 am
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for raising such an important subject. It tempted me into this new Chamber for the first time. I presume that the matey, horseshoe structure is designed to get us to agree. We agree on much about the damage caused to sections of the economy, especially to manufacturers and exporters. I declare an interest as the director of an engineering company that manufactures and sells agricultural machinery. I can therefore testify to the difficulties in that sector. However, we disagree about some of the causes of, and the supposed cures for the exchange rate problem. Nevertheless, the debate is interesting and presents an opportunity to discover the Government's policy on exchange rates. However, I say that more in hope than expectation.
I have examined the deliberations of the Bank of England and the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee. To go back a little further, the Bank of England Act 1998 is important because it establishes the responsibilities and duties of the Bank of England for monetary policy. The operational responsibility for setting interest rates, not general monetary policy, was transferred to the Bank of England. Responsibility for monetary policy remains with the Treasury, which is accountable to the House. We must therefore obtain answers.
Under the Bank of England Act 1998, the Bank must maintain price stability, and, subject to that, support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is therefore relevant to examine the instructions and illustrations about its policy that the Treasury sent to the Bank.
At that point, I struck a problem. Under section 12 of the 1998 Act, the Treasury has to put those instructions in writing and lay a copy before Parliament, but I am advised that that has not been done. I went to the House of Commons Library yesterday and it was unable to find the directions, which have been filed away in another building. However, I was told that, contrary to the requirements of the Act, they had not been laid before the House. That is a matter of more than merely technical importance. The procedure of laying a document before the House is described in "Erskine May". It has to be given to the Votes and Proceedings Office and becomes a paper of the House that can then be ordered by the House to be printed. It is kept in perpetuity and is available to hon. Members and the public. There is no record of that having been done.
If the Government have broken their own law that is a serious matter, but even if I am mistaken—although the Library was pretty clear—they have certainly broken

181WH
another provision as they did not produce that paper within seven days of the Act receiving Royal Assent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what happened to that procedure. I hope that she is statutorily immune from breaking the law—I do not want someone to be sent to the Tower of London over this but there has certainly been a discourtesy to the House and she needs to tell us a little more about that. She also has the opportunity to tell us what is in the directions. She must know, so perhaps she can tell this Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. This is not a Committee, but an extension of the House a sitting in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I apologise. You, sir, are the Deputy Speaker for these purposes, and much deserved.
Even worse, the House has been the subject of discourtesy, or certainly incompetence, by the Treasury. For the purposes of the debate we need to know what directions were given to the Bank. The MPC is concerned about the exchange rate and reference has already been made to the February minutes, which report that
a number of Committee members were very concerned about the further rise in the exchange rate … and the associated imbalances in the economy.
Those were graphically described by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Interestingly, the minutes said that it
was, therefore, desirable to consider whether official policy could do anything to mitigate this.
Even more interestingly, in paragraph 37 it continued:
The Committee debated whether intervention in the foreign exchange markets could usefully be deployed.
I was not aware that intervention, which means selling or buying the currency, is within the powers and responsibilities of the Bank, but it seems that it is. The Minister could confirm that.
The MPC discussed the possibility of intervening and concluded that it would not be wise to do so on the ground that that might not be effective. It also pointed out that
sterling's strength mainly reflected euro weakness
and hinted, slightly bizarrely, that the publication of the minutes of the discussion on the exchange rate could have a similar effect on the market as if it had intervened. It was certainly disappointed in that and I gather that when the minutes were published sterling strengthened even further.
The MPC is wise to reject intervention. Last year, the Chancellor sold 75 tonnes of gold, just before it went up in price, and bought euros, just before they went down even more. The Treasury's record is rather bleak in respect of swapping assets for euros so I would not recommend that the Bank go down that path. However, a majority of MPC members concluded that a lower exchange rate and a higher interest rate would have been preferable. It put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent., but that has had the opposite effect on the exchange rate. We know its views and deliberations in some detail, but we also need to know the Treasury's views, particularly as
182WH
a Treasury representative is present at MPC deliberations. Indeed, we read in this morning's press that the Chancellor is to brief it on the Budget.
I believe that it is unwise and probably impossible to specify an exchange rate. That is largely outside the control of Governments. Attempts to fix exchange rates can work temporarily, but usually have undesirable consequences. We all remember the exchange rate mechanism disaster. It was not caused, as is sometimes alleged, simply because we joined at the wrong rate in 1990. That would not explain why the entire system broke up a year after we left in 1992. It was fundamentally flawed and a shock was caused to it by German reunification, which simply meant that policy requirements in Germany were different from those in the rest of Europe.
Other shocks are developing at present. Some are benign, such as the spread of information technology, but the effects of the oil price rise on our own country—and, therefore, on its policy requirements are clearly different from those on the continent. I would argue that variable exchange rates are an essential adjustment mechanism, which is one reason why joining the euro would be such folly. We read in today's press that the euro has sunk
to an all-time low of 95.78 cents.
Conversely, the oil price rise has had a different effect on sterling, which simply shows not necessarily the superiority or inferiority of the British economy, but the difference between its monetary policy requirements and those obtaining in the eurozone.
That is being painfully felt in Ireland, whose inflation rate is the highest in the eurozone and well over twice the average. It is unable to do anything about that. Interest rates are set for it by a committee of bankers in Frankfurt and not according to the requirements of the Irish economy so its inflation rate is 4.4 per cent. The average is only 2 per cent. For all those reasons, aside from the constitutional and political implications of which the Government are so contemptuous, there is a clear economic case against joining the euro. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, if we joined we would lock in the over-valuation of sterling against the euro almost permanently.
Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Mr. MacShane: I have a one-line question.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give way.
Mr. MacShane: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the United Kingdom should never join the euro?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I wish that I had not given way. The hon. Gentleman knows our policy on the euro perfectly well and I am saying that our reasons are being validated and proved as every day goes by.
The Government can do something to co-ordinate monetary and fiscal policy and therefore address the strength of sterling. They have attacked savings, for

183WH
example. The £5 billion a year raid on pension funds was undertaken through the abolition of dividend tax credits and personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, which were successful mass savings vehicles, were abolished so the savings ratio has fallen. Savings, in macro-economic terms, are an excellent way to remove expenditure from consumption and relieve inflationary pressures without having to raise interest rates, with all the effects that that has on the exchange rate.
I do not believe that exchange rates can be fixed. However, there is an imbalance between sterling and the euro, which is chiefly caused by the euro's decline against the dollar. We have been pretty stable for about eight years. The Government can and should have used fiscal and monetary policy, working together, to address that problem. They eroded the savings culture in this country by lowering the savings ratio, which contributed to inflationary pressures and persuaded the MPC to keep interest rates higher than they otherwise would have been. That was particularly stupid and short-sighted.
10.50 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): It is my pleasure to respond to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has secured. I shall do my best to deal with the contributions made by other hon. Members, but I have only 10 minutes.
The Government understand very well the concerns of business, especially manufacturers and other exporters, about the level of the pound. Some people have suggested that sterling is high because the Monetary Policy Committee's remit is too narrow. The force of their argument is that the MPC should have not only an inflation target, but an exchange rate target. The Government strongly disagree with that argument. They are determined to avoid the instability that was caused by the ever-changing money targets of the early 1980s, and the dual exchange rate and inflation targets of the late 1980s and early 1990s. I have some sympathy with the points made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The failure of the exchange rate mechanism shows the difficulties of pursuing such a policy. For that reason, the MPC has only one target—the symmetrical inflation target, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby knows well.
There have also been suggestions that the Government either directly or by putting pressure on the Bank of England should intervene in foreign exchange rate markets to reduce the value of sterling. It is important to note that the sheer size of the funds involved in currency markets severely limits the effectiveness of any such approach, even if it were thought the right course to pursue.
As a number of hon. Members have said, the issue of intervention was discussed at length by the MPC at its last meeting, but it was agreed not to go ahead with such a move. Hon. Members have selectively quoted from Eddie George's contribution in front of the Treasury Select Committee last week. I should like to point out that he argued that intervention
would be ineffective and aggravate upward pressure on the pound.
It is important that we recognise the position of the MPC and the Bank of England.
184WH
Does the MPC take sufficient account of regional issues? My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) may be sceptical about the degree to which the MPC takes account of regional issues. There is one interest rate for the United Kingdom economy as a whole, so the MPC needs to base its decisions on the circumstances and requirements of the UK economy as a whole. However, it takes into account a wide range of regional and sectoral data.
In particular, it closely considers the contribution of the Bank's 13 regional agents, which cover all areas of the UK. The role of the agents is to ask local people how they view economic conditions and prospects. Each year the Bank's agents talk to and visit about 7,000 business contacts, and ensure that regional information is passed to the MPC. I know from discussions with Eddie George that he tries to get out and about the regions.
The Government believe that delivering sound public finances and low inflation is the best contribution that they can make to exchange rate stability, and is consistent with their objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. The Government have done that by putting in place new fiscal and monetary policy frameworks. The frameworks are highly transparent, forward looking and based on clear rules and targets.
A key feature of the Government's macro-economic policy framework is that it delivers effective co-ordination between monetary and fiscal policy. That is particularly relevant, as it has been suggested that sterling is high because fiscal policy has not supported monetary policy. That is not correct.
Fiscal policy should, whenever possible, support monetary policy through the cycle, if that is consistent with meeting the fiscal rules that the Government have introduced. Indeed, that has been happening. In the first two years after the Government took office, they cut borrowing by £30 billion, which significantly eased pressure on interest rates. Official interest rates are higher in the UK than in Europe, but longer-term interest rates are much closer to those in major European economies.
The Government's strategy has helped to lock in economic stability and open the way to steady growth, leaving behind the boom and bust of the past. The short-term outlook for growth is now stronger than previously expected. The Government's economic forecasts will, of course, be updated at Budget time, but the latest forecasts that were released with the pre-Budget report, which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) mentioned, showed that growth is expected to pick up in 2000 and remain strong in coming years. That outcome in part reflects the proactive and forward-looking nature of the Government's macroeconomic policy framework.
I enjoyed the debate between my two hon. Friends on the euro and euro-sterling levels. It is early days for the euro, and it is not appropriate for the Government to comment on it from day to day. I appreciate that it provokes debate, but it is not proper for us to engage in such discussions.
With the platform of stability that is now in place, the Government are delivering high and stable levels of employment. More than 800,000 new jobs have been

185WH
created since the election, and more people are now in work than ever before. Of the increase in employment in the past year, about 80 per cent. was in full-time work, so they are proper jobs. Unemployment remains on a downward trend. Claimant unemployment at 1.2 million is at its lowest level for two decades. Since the last election, long-term unemployment has been cut by half, and youth unemployment by two thirds.
The strength of business investment in 1999 has exceeded earlier expectations and remains at the level of recent highs. The strength of investment spending in recent years is partly attributable to the clear reduction in macro-economic instability and uncertainty. The UK remains Europe's premier investment location. Inward investors understand the Government's policy of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. It would not be sensible to implement short-term measures that may put the medium-term position at risk.
There has been substantial investment in the economy. Investment has risen rapidly in recent years, with an annual rate of about 10 per cent. since 1995. Even during 1999, when there was a pause in output growth, business investment remained robust. The latest figures show business investment increased by 1.2 per cent. in the last quarter of 1999. Those investment decisions are reflected in the investment of a number of companies in the UK: Nissan, Jaguar, Peugeot, General Motors, ICL and Microsoft. Indeed, part of the Toyota group chose my hon. Friend's constituency of Rotherham for its European manufacturing plant, which cost £32 million and brought some 400 jobs to the area.
Mr. MacShane: We are pro-European in Rotherham.
Miss Johnson: Those decisions show that the Government's policy is encouraging manufacturing to invest in the UK.
My hon. Friends spoke about the problems of the manufacturing sector in the current substantial downturn in world economic activity. As growth has picked up since the crises that occurred in Europe and Asia, there are encouraging signs that conditions for manufacturers are beginning to improve. Manufacturing output rose by 0.7 per cent. in the last quarter of 1999, and there are continuing signs of a strong recovery. There are also signs that exports are recovering from their recent period of weakness. Export volumes, excluding oil and erratic items, in the three months to December were up 4.8 per cent. on the same three months a year ago.
In addition to delivering greater economic stability, the Government are also helping business in other ways. In particular, they have introduced measures specifically designed to encourage enterprise. They have reduced the main rate of corporation tax, reformed capital gains tax to encourage long-term investment, and worked on improving the way in which regulations affect business. Those and other measures will help firms in all sectors of the economy, including manufacturing.

Telecoms Regulation
11 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: Mr. Chairman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Let me say straight away that, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think of me, my title in this place is Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Dr. Cable: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a debate on this subject. When I put in a bid for it nearly two weeks ago, I envisaged a gentle canter around some of the more esoteric and uncontroversial areas of Government policy—not the kind of thing that one would expect to discuss in the Rat and Parrot but— in view of what has happened since in at least two respects, the subject has become much more topical, and consequently more politically interesting.
I want to deal with four matters, and to begin with the two controversial ones. First, there is the question of where we now stand in relation to telecommunication regulation following the decisions that were made last week. I know that much of the procedural side of the debate is being dealt with in the Utilities Bill Standing Committee and was touched on yesterday, but I want to tackle the issue in a slightly different way—a more forward-looking way. I want to discuss what will happen now, in the hiatus between the abandoning of the Bill's approach to communications regulation and the adoption of the new integrated approach, and, specifically, what will happen to the telecoms business.
Secondly, there is the question of charging for the internet. The position is moving by the day, if not by the hour. I am not sure that any of us fully understands the implications of developments emanating from the private sector, but I want at least to raise some questions about what those developments may mean, and where they leave Government intervention.
Thirdly, I want to ask about other aspects of access to the internet, which are not simply a question of price; and, finally, I want to deal with the issue of the public sector's use of the internet. It is clear that, as the private sector solves its problems, more and more of the spotlight will be directed at the Government's role in using the system—in other words, online government—and the whole issue of how it is being benchmarked and promoted.
Let me start with the withdrawal of telecommunications from the Utilities Bill. Last week, several of us were party to a slightly histrionic session, with Order Papers being torn up, karate chops on the Dispatch Box and other excitements. Interesting and important issues were raised, however, and I want to raise them again now, in a spirit of questioning rather than of accusation.
The Government's line—which, up to a point, is very plausible—is that they are listening; but whom are they listening to? That point was made effectively last Thursday by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who observed that, while the Government were listening acutely to industry and to the operators, they were not, perhaps, listening to

187WH
consumers. Until yesterday, when I talked to consumer groups from the public utilities access forum, I had not appreciated quite how badly consumers had been treated over the past week.
There is a history; I am not sure of the extent to which the Standing Committee went into it. When the Utilities Bill was first presented, the consumer groups were quite enthusiastic, because they, as much as anyone else, had insisted on the strong consumer powers in it. Indeed, I understand that when the Bill was published the press office of the Department of Trade and Industry telephoned the consumer groups, and asked them to issue statements praising the Government for incorporating telecoms—which they did, because they were very pleased. Last week, however, not only were the consumer groups not consulted on the change of policy; they were not even given an explanation. There is clearly a serious imbalance between listening to a perfectly legitimate group of interests represented by the operators—who are acting quite properly—and not listening to the countervailing arguments of the consumer side.
There is a related point of more basic importance. If the producer interests are listened to in such a panic, that begins to undermine the reputation that the Government have built up so carefully—a reputation for impartiality in their dealings with business. I was involved in the Government machine in the 1970s, when we had a rather corporatist approach: certain companies saw themselves as representing Great Britain Ltd, and had partial access to Government. The present Government, certainly in the DTI context, have gone out of their way to create a more transparent process. The rules governing the auctioning of mobile licences strike me as an admirable example of the Government's detachment from special-interest pressure groups, and their creation of a transparent process. However, as a result of their listening to a particular company, or representing a group of companies, their reputation for transparency and objectivity is being gravely undermined, and that has potentially damaging longterm implications.
There is an even more serious question: what were the Government listening to? Until I had an opportunity to read the correspondence in detail at the weekend, I had not realised the extent to which, by acceding to the demands of the operators, the Government were not merely doing what they claimed to be doing —taking a visionary view of convergence—but conceding specific criticisms of the treatment of telecommunications in the Utilities Bill. The operators made it clear that they were wholly opposed to the fine regime, that they were hostile to an independent consumer council, and that they were hostile to many of the proactive consumer provisions in the Bill.
I was sent a letter by the operators' group—I think all hon. Members have received copies—explaining what the operators objected to in the original Bill. It states:
The prospect of unlimited fines with no full appeal mechanism
—this is the key passage—
and communications companies being agents of social and environmental policy through vaguely or even undefined measures will severely lessen the UK's attractiveness for investment in communications.
It is important for us to learn from the Minister whether the Government have accepted that criticism, and what the social and environmental objectives that
188WH
are being jettisoned are. I suspect that the phrase may refer to the preventive approach to health in relation to telecommunications masts, and, perhaps, to access to the system for socially deprived groups. I do not know what it means, but one of the Bill's objectives was clearly to strengthen social and environmental regulation. Given that the operators' criticism has been accepted, to what extent will that objective be diluted?
Mr. Andrew George: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate, and apologise for not being able to stay for all of it.
I hope that my question is not too tangential. Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on the right given to operating companies by the Telecommunications Act 1984, in the form of 25-year licences to disrupt communities, particularly in my constituency? With the arrival of the worldwide network, small country lanes have been disrupted almost continuously for the past four or five years by company after company. The road network is minimal; there has been no compensation and hardly any notice, and the roads are deteriorating seriously.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.
Dr. Cable: I understand that the cable companies are digging up Cornwall with the same finesse with which they dug up urban constituencies nearer London a couple of years ago, and I know that that is creating a problem. I think that the point relates to a wider issue—that of local loop competition, with which I shall deal shortly—but I agree that the companies have often been rather crass in the way in which they have opened up the system.
I return to the thread of the argument: telecommunications operators have won a retreat on telecoms regulation under the Utilities Bill. I push the Minister a little further: how far does she accept not merely the process point that they have raised—the desirability of future legislation integrating telecommunications and broadcasting—but the substance of their criticism of the original Bill?
One of the points relates to the social and environmental objectives that the companies appear to have objected to. The other relates specifically to consumer protection. What, within the original proposals for a telecommunications regulatory authority and for an independent consumer council, specifically inhibits the development of e-commerce, as the operators claimed? Does the Minister accept that argument? Is that a factor behind the retiming and restructuring of the legislation?
What will happen in the hiatus between the withdrawal of telecommunications from the Utilities Bill and the introduction of new legislation, which will follow the White Paper and, presumably, arrive in the early years of the next Parliament? In that period, will no action be taken to introduce an independent consumer council, or can it be introduced? I have heard it argued that it could be introduced on a free-standing basis without new legislation, but will the Minister make clear what the position will be? It is an important point in relation to consumer protection.

189WH
In the intervening period, how will the Government deal with those aspects of consumer protection that are not provided simply by the stimulus of competition? I take one concrete example. Clearly, there is enormous consumer benefit from the fierce competition in the mobile telephony sector of telecommunications, but for some time there has been strong pressure on the mobile operators to come up with the information that will make possible comparisons between different mobile systems for consumers.
As we know, there is much obfuscation in the promotional material about price, quality and back-up service. Consumers have found it difficult to obtain the comparative basis for judging the products. How far will consumer protection go to deal with such a problem?
Does the withdrawal of telecommunications from the Utilities Bill imply a different model of regulation from the one that the Government were embarking on until a week ago? Many of us believed that, despite the rapid changes and the competition at the margins, the telecommunications sector merited a utility regulation approach because, after two decades, British Telecom still has about 72 per cent. of the fixed-line revenue. There are still problems such as the enormous volume of disconnections, which have to be dealt with through a regulator. Do the Government still accept that telecommunications requires that form of utility regulation?
Mr. Bob Laxton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of what is happening, particularly in the telecommunications sector, and the rapid changes, there is a case for regulation? However, because of the convergence of technology within the broadcasting industry as well as the telecommunications industry, is there not a case for regulation and a commission that encompasses not just the broad sector of telecommunications, but an even broader sector: broadcasting, where convergence is occurring rapidly?
Dr. Cable: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that there is consensus on that. It is clear that the sector is moving rapidly. Communications and telecommunications are becoming interwoven. An Ofcom dealing with communications regulation in the wider sense is clearly the right way to go. I do not think that there any dispute about that.
The dispute is about why it was necessary to withdraw telecommunications regulation in its strengthened form, with consumer protection, at this stage? Why could not the legislation have proceeded and been built on when Ofcom was eventually introduced? There is no questioning of the basic wisdom of integration and of having a regulatory structure for that. I think that we all accept that.
I move to the second issue: charging. The problem that the Government have had—it is a problem that we all share; it is not specifically a Government problem—is that, in many respects, the UK has lagged behind in terms of access to the internet and internet use. It is an important failure.
One of the most persuasive papers that I have read in the past few days, which I strongly commend to those who have not seen it, is the excellent one by Sushil
190WH
Wadhwani of the Monetary Policy Committee on the economic consequences of internet use—the enormous advantages in terms of productivity growth and lower inflation with growth. It is compelling, with much detailed industrial and service sector data to back it up.
As the Minister has repeatedly argued—indeed, she has worked for it in the past year or so—it is important to get Britain to the top of that league. We are about 12th, lagging behind not just the United States and Canada, but many European countries, particularly in northern Europe.
The argument has been—there is some consensus about it—that one of the main reasons why we have lagged behind is the charging system: because of metering. Most consumer surveys suggest that use of the internet could multiply three or four times if charging were not metered.
That metering in turn relates to BT's practice—derived from its history—of charging on the basis of voice telephony, rather than of the new internet system, where marginal cost is effectively zero. The question that I ask is partly about what is happening in the market: how far do the developments of the past few days represent a fundamental breakthrough in relation to that problem? Do the Government believe that, as a result of this week's developments, that problem is now effectively cracked?
My sense—I am just reacting to news—is that that probably is not the case. As I understand it, the AltaVista proposal involves the company taking a heavy commercial risk. It will absorb BT's charging in the hope that the rapid growth in e-commerce revenue will compensate it for the risk.
This morning's proposal from BT itself, as I understand it, is a special package. It will not be open to all internet service providers. It will not provide a route to rapid spread of unmetered charging, but I should be grateful for the Minister's assessment of the changes.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman is right. The position this week, I understand, is that there is no unmetered call. AltaVista has taken a hit of £100 million to its bottom line. It explained both to the Office of Telecommunications and to BT that a commercial package could be won, but BT does not want to accept that it has to change. As he has indicated, the problem basically is BT.
Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That links directly to the public policy issue. A couple of weeks ago, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government indicated that they were willing to challenge the existing BT monopoly in respect of the local loop. Clearly, the market believed it, because there was a major impact on BT's share price, but now that the dust has settled, the question is: what has changed? As I understand the position and the comments of the Oftel director, Mr. Edmonds, and others, nothing has changed. The date for the breaking of the monopoly—July 2001—has not changed. It remains dependent on a gentleman's agreement, essentially, between BT and Oftel on the technological readiness of the system to cope with an opening.
If nothing has changed and the local loop monopoly structure remains essentially intact, one may well wonder what purpose the Chancellor's intervention was

191WH
intended to serve. What has been the result of the intervention? It has created enormous confusion in the industry about who is making telecommunications policy, and it seems to have had minimal effect on the fundamental problem—internet charging.
Dr. Nick Palmer: This has been a very illuminating debate, and I regret that I shall not be able to stay for all of it. However, I should like to know—simply to act as the devil's advocate—whether the hon. Gentleman is certain that the unlimited flat-rate access model is the most appropriate long-term method. America—which we all bow down to as our example—has used that model for many years, but I have read suggestions that that is more for historical reasons which arose long before the internet had been imagined. Moreover, in economics, the idea of providing a product for which there is no restraint on unlimited use does not necessarily accord with ensuring that that product is used optimally.
Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The simple answer is that I am not certain about that. Very few of us are certain, as very few of us deeply understand what is happening. There are substantial changes in the economics of the issue, and those of us who were brought up in the old economics world of scarcity and diminishing returns are having to rethink the world. We are not living in a world of diminishing returns. The marginal cost of using a broadband system is zero. There is no reason why there should be metering, and most consumer surveys suggest that metering is a massive deterrent to use of the system.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The implication of unbundling the loop seems to be that there will be an all-gain outcome. However, in its brief, BT says—I think that its case should be heard in this debate—that it should like to emphasise that unbundling the local loop
will not be a short cut to cheaper internet access for all—on the contrary, cherry-picking of the most lucrative customers and areas will be encouraged.
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that unbundling the loop might not be all it is cracked up to be?
Dr. Cable: I certainly did not wish to imply any criticism of BT as a company. Some years ago, when the Conservative Government were in power, BT accepted the principle of competition from cable companies. BT accepted that—rather than unbundling the loop, which is the United States's approach—that form of competition should take place, and its subsequent strategy has been on predictable assumptions flowing from it. I also accept—I think this was the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention—that unmetered charging is not necessarily exactly the same thing as unbundling the loop. The two are partly disconnected, although there is a relationship between them.
None the less, what I hope will come out of this debate is a clear statement from the Government on two points. First, what is the Government's understanding of the current position on unmetered charging, and what options are open to them in ensuring that it is made universal as quickly as possible? Secondly, where do we
192WH
stand on the principle—whether it is right or wrong of
unbundling the loop? What is the Government's commitment on that, and what time frame do they envisage as necessary for its implementation?
I should like briefly to touch on two other issues, the first of which is provision of wider access to the internet. Such access is clearly already being provided by means of commercial processes and e-commerce, and that is all very welcome. The Government—with their initiatives on ensuring that students have internet addresses by 2002 and on widespread availability within schools of internet-compatible personal computers—are doing much to ensure that the younger generation has internet access. Much is being done to raise internet awareness at that end of the age scale. I also read, this morning, that jobseekers will be given access to the system. Indeed, developments on access are emerging weekly.
I should like to know, however, the extent to which the Government have thought through the problem of those who are technophobic, particularly the problems of the elderly and those who have physical disabilities, to enable them proactively to counter the possibility of their being excluded from the system.
In my constituency, for example, a new system has been established—entitled "Hampton Online"—that has had 2,000 contacts since being established. It is an attempt to recreate "the old village" in my suburban constituency, and to enable everyone in the village to communicate through the internet. The problem with the system is that the 25 or 30 per cent. of the population who are elderly are wholly isolated from the new system. Unless something is done to help them—the people behind the website are doing something to help them, by making pictures more attractive and the system much less difficult—they will remain isolated from it.
Do the Government have any thoughts on how people in the older age range—who could perhaps derive enormous benefit from that type of system—and those who are less mobile may gain access in the same way as the younger generation? Is adult education considered a vehicle for increasing access, and how might that be provided?
What specific action is being taken to help the visually impaired or those who are deaf? There is, potentially, an enormous problem for them. If mobile telephony becomes the new vehicle for the internet, how will those who cannot hear cope with the new system? I have in my constituency someone named Julia Schofield. She is recognised as the international pioneer of online government, but she is totally blind. I am very concerned and frustrated by the fact that operators are extremely insensitive to the needs of people such as Julia Schofield. What is being done to ensure that the issue of access to new systems for people like her is being addressed?
Mr. Duncan: Given that looking at a computer screen will not be very productive if one is blind, what can be done to ensure access for blind people? I am puzzled about what can be done to help them. It would greatly benefit all of us if we could determine a way in which access could be provided for them.
Dr. Cable: It is possible, using combinations of touch and sound, to deal with lack of vision. Although it is a complex matter, those who are visually impaired know the problems that they face with such systems, and I am assured that there are technical solutions to those problems. Some of the more imaginative people in the sphere are developing software to cope with the problems. However, it is not necessarily the type of project that companies would embark on commercially, and it will probably require either active intervention or persuasion by Government.
The final issue that I should like to raise—I apologise for going a little over the 20 minutes that I had planned to allow myself—is online government. The Government have already set themselves some targets, such as that, by 2002, 25 per cent. of Government business should be done online.
In the past week, my parliamentary colleagues and I have had a bit of fun with Government targets, which seem to come and go and to have a slightly surreal quality—a bit like the Soviet planning system once demonstrated. Targeting is fine, but the much more important issue is to determine how the Government will benchmark their own performance. What criteria will they adopt? To what extent has benchmarking in Government services been developed?
Perhaps a few anecdotes will illustrate the point. A couple of days ago, I saw that an evaluation of the Government's websites has recently been conducted. The sites were said to vary from excellent—such as that operated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—to the abysmal, which was the verdict given by users of most of the sites. However, very little attention has been paid to the problem.
To what extent have online processes, such as obtaining a television licence, car licence or passport, been accelerated? One would have thought that obtaining a car licence, for example, could be done fairly easily on the internet. Does online government mean more than simply downloading a form to fill in? Can the process be completed online, and completed quickly and efficiently? I am told by people who have used other systems that countries such as Australia are far ahead of us in developing those systems.
I ask the Minister to go a little beyond the controversies that we have had in the past week and to think a little more into the future, to give us some indication of how far Government have thought ahead to the next big challenge that they will face, which is not simply chivvying and regulating the private sector, but implementing change themselves.
11.29 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for bringing this debate to the Chamber—on the very morning on which, for the first time, the FTSE 100 valued dot.com companies above some of the older, more traditional industries. I should say that I have a few interests in this sphere, all of which are in the Register of Members' Interests. Although I am not paid for it, I sit on some advisory boards in America and in Great Britain that are involved in the matter.
I think that this debate is about the future and culture of BT. As BT controls so much of the market, unless it changes its culture to be more like that of a dot.com company, it will hold back the rest of Britain.
194WH
On Friday, the Liaison Committee met and suggested that the Committee should perhaps have more authority and power. It would be wonderful if, one day, regulators were allowed to speak in this Chamber, so that not only Select Committee members, but all hon. Members could question them. Until we are able to discover what they are doing, we shall not be able to hold them accountable.
Several issues worry me. The first is about IR35, which has been a Treasury concern. One of my constituents, Andrew Crayford, works in the industry and he says that he faces the prospect either of going on the dole and withdrawing all his services or of taking an attractive contract in Germany. That means that the intellectual ability of many people in this sector will be lost. We have had debates on IR35 elsewhere, but I have received three different sets of advice from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office about its impact. That is not helpful.
The performance of BT has been frustrating. I wish to refer to the website edex.co.UK, which is one of the organisations that work between schools and BT. It is an internet service provider. The following news appears on the net today:
It transpires that the problem was caused …by BT running out of capacity at the Wimbledon Exchange to the extent that the 999 services were endangered. I believe they even had to physically enlarge the facility at the exchange to bring in that extra capacity.
At no point did BT publicly acknowledge that the problems schools were experiencing were down to them.
I could go on and on, but the message continues:
We have also experienced instances where groups of schools in certain parts of the country have lost connectivity (e.g. certain areas of Manchester). This has been traced to problems at the local exchange. Once again, BT did not admit that they had any problems, but their engineers acknowledged that they had exchange problems.
The culture, organisation and ownership are not the only things that worry me about BT. I am also worried about the middle management structure and the transparency of the company. That is a concern, especially as BT's share price went down yesterday.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made one or two speeches about the internet this week, but yesterday he said that he hoped that everyone would have internet access within five years. As I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce knows, five years in internet years is 35 years. Some of us have been in the House for nearly three years, which is 21 internet years—a generation of change to which we have not yet adjusted. Five years is far too long. We cannot continue to say that everyone will have internet access in another five years. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will tell us what initiatives will enable the Government to achieve their aims.
We have had so many initiatives that I have lost track of where we are. We have had the Prime Minister's speeches this week and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech on the cost of the internet for small and medium-sized enterprises, and also made a speech to BT two weeks ago. Last week, the Department of Trade and Industry talked about the utilities and there have been many e-commerce initiatives. In addition, late last week, the Department for Education and Employment announced its plans for learning direct hubs, and the Cabinet Office has announced other measures.

195WH
I have said for some time—it is not necessarily an employment opportunity for me—that we need a Minister for the internet. In the larger companies in America on the Nasdaq index, the third most important person after the chief executive and the finance director is now the internet director. There must be a sea-change in the way in which business and government work in this country. The person responsible for the internet is the third most important person in an organisation.
The problem of blindness was mentioned. There is the most wonderful woman in Richmond—her name escapes me at the moment—and the hon. Member for Twickenham referred to her. She is blind, but that has not stopped her designing the site "Melbourne Public Services On-line". Her problem is that if she asked British Airways to take her dog to Melbourne, it would not be able to return to this country. So she now has a coterie of dogs in Melbourne and in this country to help her, and her website has enabled her to do that. I pay tribute to her. A strong group of people who use Braille online have made presentations to me. What they can do is fantastic, considering that they cannot see.
There are initiatives for computer centres and 1,000 are planned. Two separate parts of government have initiatives for homework clubs, but they could be organised by one body. If we were really serious, the computer centre concept would have been a public-private partnership worth billions of pounds. Not in five years, but overnight we could have found the money—that is the issue—to put hubs and centres into the poorest parts of the country. The divisiveness of internet provision worries me most.
New applications are being made to run the lottery. The trouble with sub-post offices that currently have terminals to sell lottery tickets is that they must guarantee 3,000 sales. If they cannot do that, they cannot have a terminal. Given that a post office—and especially a sub-post office—is so important to a community, would it not be wonderful if the new lottery provision could include a hub connected to the terminal? People would go to a post office not just for a lottery ticket, but perhaps to pick up their e-mails or to check a few things on the net. We could be clever and skilful and make just a few changes to enable post offices to remain open.
The national grid for learning and learning direct initiatives are amazing. We talk about social exclusion and social inclusion. It is estimated that 20 per cent.—or 12 million people—are excluded from access, but how many learning direct hubs are in socially excluded areas? One might be surprised to hear it, but there are none in Kent and that creates a struggle. We must close the social divide, but especially the social divide with respect to the internet.
There are initiatives to open the schools and the libraries and to have network classrooms and terminals in libraries. That is happening, but the trouble is that schools close at 4.30 pm, and libraries, by and large, close at 5 pm and do not open on Sundays, which is just when the children without computers at home or access to the internet need to be able to get into public buildings. A bit of joined-up government would be so important. School initiatives, library initiatives, computer centre initiatives and homework clubs make up four initiatives involving huge sums of money.
196WH
However, if one person had put them together, he would have not created the jumble or the jungle that we have now.
I am disappointed with the BBC, but I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree with me. It could have been the public service face of the internet and a multi-media hub. It could have a policy that said, "We will do BBC 1, BBC 2, but we will do BBC hubs and we will take control of computer centres. We will be part of the public-private initiative and develop a public service for the internet beyond anything that we have yet seen." However, the BBC has been quiet about the internet and it has not met its responsibilities as a public service. I am not saying that BBC Online is not good, but it is not exactly what our communities need.
As regards the UK Trust, I am concerned that the Consumers Association is on the trust itself and is bidding for trust status. Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on that?
In the near future, a key thing would be to use the lottery for the internet's infrastructure. We have seen big projects, such as that for the millennium dome, but many small projects worth £50 million to £100 million have not worked. I could go through them, but I wonder whether the best prize for the 21st century would not have been an internet infrastructure. The lottery provides huge sums of money, so is that not something that we could think about in the future even though the lottery is not part of my hon. Friend's brief? However, for the sake of joined-up writing, I ask the question.
At the end of this year, the satellite systems for Teledesic, the Seattle-based company, will be launched. There will be about 350 low-orbit satellites and they will create a fundamental change to the internet, because they will provide mobility. For once, would it not be great to have initiatives with Teledesic to work out whether, with the appropriate security, we could use those satellites for our social security and pensions systems? What conversations have we had with the company? We argue about land lines and unmetered calls, but they might be old-fashioned analogue arguments. Teledesic will change the whole way we consider the issue.
It would be great to have a debate soon about what gov.com means. People may think that it is about the transfer of services, without fundamentally understanding what the internet does to government. I have been trying to understand it. We may want league tables, but what does the internet fundamentally do to government? The internet changes the way in which we work and play, threatens the concept of the nation state, and is a horizontal not a vertical structure. Most of us have come up in vertical structures and a horizontal structure threatens the civil service system. It creates a completely different working environment, so it means fundamental change.
I read the papers that Sir Richard Wilson gave the Prime Minister before Christmas, which are on the net. The two-day awayday in Sunningdale came up with six changes for a modern civil service, but nothing was said about gov.com. If the civil service have not got there, we will not.

197WH
The internet threatens the age-old Government power structure. I was lucky to be in Washington two weeks ago and I saw a bit of McCain and Gore, but the way in which the groups are working on the net in America represents a fundamental change in democracy and power, and we have not got there yet.
11.41 am
Mr. Bob Laxton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this timely debate. I intervened to ask whether there was a case for a far wider regulatory framework than that provided by the Utilities Bill, encompassing the totality of broadcasting and telecommunications, and the hon. Gentleman replied that telecommunications should have been retained in the Utilities Bill and built upon. With the great pressures on parliamentary time and the speed at which technology is developing, it is better that it should have been taken out of the Bill and a specific telecommunications Bill introduced quickly.
This is an interesting debate. It is constantly said that BT has 81 or 83 per cent. of the fixed-line network, and that is true. However, we should consider some of the other technologies that are around. Some of the statistics are pretty amazing. For example, mobile penetration in Britain is at about 35 per cent. and is expected to rise to 26.5 million, which is nearly 50 per cent. of the fixed-line market. Those statistics may be wrong, but the growth is huge and will continue rapidly. It is a competitive area which, in many respects, will start to diminish the role of the fixed-line network.
As a nation, we need to ensure that we have in place regulation that will not inhibit or hold back our economic growth. We should bear in mind the fact that BT has to pay close attention to the universal service obligation, which, under the current regulatory framework, is placed upon BT, and BT alone. If that were to be imposed upon other service providers—I am not advocating that it should—we might see some ongoing restriction in telecommunications.
I want to consider internet access and some of the existing technologies—I must ensure that I get the terminology spot on—which include digital subscriber technology, wireless application protocol, universal mobile telephone services and digital television. DSL provides an opportunity to enhance the performance of the existing copper line network—local loop unbundling. Part of the debate on that concerns the speed at which BT is introducing its version of that—asymmetric digital subscriber line technology—to support platforms for other internet access providers across the network. There has been an on-going debate about the speed, or some would say the slowness, at which BT is putting the technology in place, but it will be put in place, as it is required to be, and the date that has been referred to is July 2001. However, there is considerable pressure on BT to move faster.
The future of mobile technology is about not just telephone and voice messages, but a plethora of technologies. UMTS, third generation mobile phones, will bring in a system whereby people can send and receive e-mail, draw down digital music, surf the net and even, if they want to, dial people up and hold verbal
198WH
conversations. The technology is moving apace. It is with us now, but it will soon be out on the street when we will all be able to buy into it. We need to consider that in relation to the fixed-line network. That is why I take the view that the mobile technology is the technology of the future. Whether BT has 60 or 90 per cent. of the fixed-line network begins to be pretty irrelevant.
BT made an announcement this morning on internet pricing—
Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend did not draw the conclusion that seems to be waiting to be drawn, although he may have been being his usual moderate self. The companies associated with the mobile technologies seem to be allowed to cherry-pick the BT network for their own benefit, while the future appears to be satellite based. Therefore, they are depleting BT's profit margins, and, at the end of the day, BT is the only company that has any interest in maintaining a fixed-line system which we hope will reach all our people and make them part of the information society. Therefore, matters are weighted towards those who will take off into the stratosphere by satellite, leaving behind a damaged fixed-line network in Britain.
Mr. Laxton: Cherry-picking has been common in many services, with companies wanting to cream off the lucrative areas, leaving the regulated companies, such as BT, which have to provide a universal service, unable to make much profit or to cross-subsidise with the profitable arms of the business that have been taken away from them.
I will not say that I heard the morning news at 5 or 6 o'clock, but I may test hon. Members' imagination by saying that I heard it shortly after 7 o'clock. In my half-awake state, I think that I heard about fixed-price internet access for £6 a month for residential customers and about £29 for business customers. There is no doubt that some of the new companies, such as Alta Vista, are concentrating BT's mind.
All the communications companies operate in a highly competitive environment. BT would argue that it has been prevented by regulation from providing services such as surf packages quickly, which has hindered its ability to compete. As the days move on—it will be days, rather than weeks, months or years—we need to be conscious of the fact that the internet and original voice technology should be available to everyone throughout the land.
It has recently come to my attention that probably more than 70 per cent. of small and medium-sized companies in the south-east are wired up to the internet, whereas the figure in the north-west is probably 18 or 19 per cent. In Scotland, surprisingly, the percentage is probably down in single figures. It is not a north-south divide, but society and business are being segmented into those who see the sense of getting wired up and those who do not, and those who can afford it and those who cannot.
Mr. Connarty: I hoped that my hon. Friend would mention the problem that the providers of mobile telephone services do not universally cover large areas of Scotland because of the difficulties of access. In fact, even some of the central areas are sporadically blanked

199WH
out because of the technology that is used. That has always been a problem. The universal delivery that we get from the postal services and from BT is not being replicated by those who are cherry-picking the mobile networks.
Mr. Laxton: My hon. Friend has far more experience than I do of the difficulties experienced in Scotland. I can envisage the difficulty of putting communications towers on mountain tops all over Scotland. That would not go down too well with much of the environmental lobby, and rightly so.
The regulation imposed on BT can inhibit its ability to move rapidly in response to some of the issues that it faces. None the less, it must move faster. We must also bear it in mind that some of the new technologies that are coming on stream and will be with us in the next 12 to 18 months will further open up the market. We must push to ensure that, from a regulatory viewpoint, Britain is as well placed as it can be to thrive in this new era of technology.
11.55 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: On behalf of all hon. Members, I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for initiating this debate on an important topic. There is broad cross-party agreement in wanting information technology and the internet revolution to continue apace and help society in the broadest possible way, but some political disagreement about the nature of regulation. I am very sorry that there are not more hon. Members present to take an interest in this matter.
The leaders of all major parties are expressing opinions, but the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham was a tour de force and he has perhaps single-handedly given a new meaning to the brand image of Cable and Wireless. He has effectively dissected the current state of Government policy, and especially the manner in which consultation has or has not taken place with consumers and producers. At the kernel of his argument is the question of where regulation and competition clash or separate. That is the basis on which Government policy is being scrutinised.
As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) rightly said, this debate takes place on the very day on which some .com companies have displaced traditional corporations in the FTSE 100. Sadly, it also takes place against the background of significant disarray in Government policy affecting the regulation of the whole of telecommunications and the internet.
I remember sitting as a spotty youth in 1976 in Committees and the Strangers Gallery—you were a fiery young Back Bencher, Mr. Deputy Speaker—watching the collapse under the previous Labour Administration of the Shipbuilding Bill. We had not since then witnessed an equivalent collapse of such a major flagship piece of legislation, until the crumbling last week of the Utilities Bill, which has proved itself an unhappy mixture of intent.
The Labour party's general election manifesto said:
We recognise the need for open and predictable regulation which is fair to both consumers and to shareholders and at the same time provides incentives for managers to innovate and improve efficiency.
200WH
That was echoed two and a half years later when the Utilities Bill was introduced, but it hardly represents what happened subsequently. Shareholders and customers in two major sectors are now in limbo and the Government's overall policy on regulation is extremely uncertain and in complete disarray. The shambles has left a lot of people in the lurch. At a time when we all want progress to continue apace, there is an uncertainty that this country can ill afford.
Such is the disarray in the Department of Trade and Industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State asking whether telecommunications would be withdrawn from the Utilities Bill and on the day after the Bill had collapsed received a holding reply saying that he would get back to her in due course. Such is the lack of co-ordination in the Minister's Department that people are rightly considering its conduct extremely critically.
Although the Government speak the language of wanting to champion competition, in fact they remain a champion of regulation. Between the two, they are schizoid, to put it mildly. The Conservatives want to see a major shift away from regulation to competition. Competition is what happens naturally and it is beginning to happen with some force, although it is being hampered by an old-fashioned system of regulation that the Government are not prepared to tackle.
We have already seen in the drafting of the Electronic Communications Bill a two-year turf war between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office on the nature of the regulation involved. Now, as technology takes a quantum leap from fixed wire links to an explosion of wireless technology, which also implicitly includes broadcasting, we are seeing a new turf war between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about which one should regulate those communications.
We desperately now need a clear statement of policy from the Government about the regulation of all those telecommunications matters. However, all we were promised in the mess of a statement last week at Trade and Industry questions was a communications White Paper, which I understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—will be published only in November. That means that we will have six months of limbo and uncertainty, while the country cries out for a clear statement of Government policy on that rapidly moving sector. Even when the statement arrives in November, no action is likely to take place in what will be left of this Parliament. Although the country demands speed, we probably will not see any proper Government action until the next Parliament.
Mr. Connarty: I am fascinated by the hon. Member's analysis that the country is demanding speed. In the past few months, I have attended several symposiums in Europe on e-commerce and the information age, and the feeling is that we have to get it right. Debate in Europe will continue at the Lisbon special council, but we should not rush it in case we get it wrong. The Government should be commended for admitting that the scene is changing so quickly that they must gain a clear view before rushing in. The previous Government pushed through regulations on the masts for the new

201WH
mobile technology, and now everyone is complaining because those masts are stuck outside their doors. The planning authorities cannot stop that happening, because of the laws passed by the Tories when they rushed the issue.
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been following what we have said in Committee on the Electronic Communications Bill. We have clearly held out against the sort of fossilised regulation that was likely to emerge from that Bill. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions, we believe that the Government should not fossilise a system of regulation on a technology that is changing apace. We need the minimum light touch of regulation to safeguard certain standards and disciplines. However, the obverse of that is that we do not want the increasingly fossilised system of regulation to remain in place. We need a clear statement of policy from the Government that allows all the companies to compete fully with each other to bring about the benefits that we want to see. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has missed the point.
One needs only to consider the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry and, in particular, the Secretary of State to see that what I say is true. For instance, at a time when companies are attempting to develop cable technology as a powerful competitive force, the Secretary of State referred the NTL-Cable and Wireless merger—against the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. He should not have done so. Even now, the Secretary of State is sitting on the report that he instigated, to the companies' great annoyance. He should probably have kept his nose out of the issue altogether, but the Government's track record is over-intrusive.
Mr. Wyatt: On the issue of NTL and Cable and Wireless, does the hon. Gentleman understand that the digital box would be a closed box, so that it would be open only for cable, not satellite or digital terrestrial services? That is a negative and dangerous approach, because we need open and transparent platforms.
Mr. Duncan: I agree that we need openness and transparency wherever possible. I do not want to go into the detail of that point, because I might be ruled out of order, given that it is sitting on the Secretary of State's desk—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Gentleman should feel free to make any point he likes, because the issue is not sub judice.
Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, in the interests of time, I shall restrain myself.
The other event of the past week was the unnecessary intrusion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that led to an unfortunate decline in BT's share price, and he must choose between an independent regulator or in competition. The ambiguity of his position has caused unnecessary harm.
202WH
I hold no particular brief for BT, but, in the interests of fairness and justice, I must state that the Government's emerging attitudes to BT are rather distasteful. BT has become a whipping boy, and some politicians are trying to score political points by having a go at BT. As hon. Members have said this morning, BT has been in a different category because it had an obligation of universal provision imposed on it in the years following privatisation. Now that we have that universal provision, it borders on the unjust to attack BT for the way in which the regulator is regulating it. In fairness, all hon. Members should accept that BT's case should be fairly heard and it should be set in a proper understanding of where we want to be and of where we and BT have come from.
BT is in a unique position. It was the pioneer of privatisation, since when many other companies have followed, and it is unfair to attack BT in the way that the Chancellor and other politicians have done. BT has supplied me with a brief, and I shall read out a couple of paragraphs simply to put its point of view on record. It states:
BT has always been keen to play its part in driving down prices—supporting the vision for a UK world-leading role in e-commerce.
We should remember that BT has been subject to price-reduction regulation since privatisation. It continues:
However, unlike its competitors, and indeed unlike its European counterparts, it is prevented from swift action through a burdensome, slow and outmoded regulatory regime.
Perhaps the Minister could say whether she thinks that that is a fair point. BT also says:
BT supports the removal of telecommunications from the Utility Bill and is pleased that the government recognises the competitive and converged nature of the UK communication market. This review must be underpinned by a robust analysis of the competitive framework of the future UK market. Any review that relies on an extrapolation of history will not create a durable and effective policy framework.
I read that this morning, and have been briefed no further, but it struck me as a reasonable point of view. The recognition that BT has a fair point reinforces our call for a swift and urgent statement of the Government's policy on telecommunications regulation. To have to wait for the White Paper until November, when it will doubtless be kicked further into the long grass until the next Parliament, is unacceptable. The Minister must answer those concerns in some detail.
I wish to leave the Minister time to answer the questions posed by hon. Members, especially by the hon. Member for Twickenham, but I have a few more points to make. It is good news that a sudden and vicious price war has broken out. Of course, some will fall by the wayside and others will become champions of the sort of access that the consumer is crying out to enjoy, but that competitive outburst is good news for the consumer and will also flush out the progress that we want at the speed that we want. However, the climate of regulation, for which the Minister is responsible, must not jeopardise that, or disadvantage any particular player in that competitive market.
Reference has been made in the debate to the way in which Government can use the IT revolution to improve service delivery. I have always considered that the matter divides into two distinct categories—e-commerce and e-government. They are allied, but

203WH
different. On the one hand, trade, retailing and communication between individuals and corporations must be encouraged to develop through e-commerce and the internet. On the other, the Government are responsible for form filling, tax returns, and the promulgation of views and information, and we want that to improve dramatically through a parallel use of technology.
It is of great regret to Conservative Members that the Government have mouthed words of support for the internet, but have continued to fail to make decisions that would keep Britain at the leading edge of that development. The IR35 tax rules will drive people out of this country, just when we need their expertise. That is an utter disgrace.
Although one cannot believe everything in the newspapers, it is clear from them that Germany is likely to import 3,000 technicians to help meet staff needs. It therefore seems doubly absurd that Britain, a competitor country with many such technicians, should have an idiotic tax policy that will drive 10, 20 or 25 per cent. of them abroad, or out of business altogether.
Mr. Connarty: Remarks like that make me angry. The hon. Gentleman is saying that people should enjoy a tax advantage. My son is a software engineer and has his own company. He admits that he has a massive advantage over people who pay their fair share of tax. He says that regulation is long overdue. If it were available, he would use it, as would all his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman is simply making a protest on behalf of tax dodgers.
Mr. Duncan: There is no dodging whatsoever. The comments from the Minister and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) illustrate a failure to recognise the changing structure of risk taking in this country. Much of the gain for risk takers at the leading edge of technological development is on paper rather than in cash. They face unacceptable bills when it comes to paying national insurance, for example, and they are finding them very difficult to meet.
It is distasteful that the Prime Minister should seek publicity by jumping on the internet bandwagon, as if to claim the credit for gains that so obviously are the product of others' work. The Government should make a clear statement of policy on regulation. We want less interference from the Department of Trade and Industry, and from legislation. After the shambles of the past week, there needs to be a greater sense of order in the way that legislation passes through the House, so that this country can remain at the leading edge of what is a very important technological revolution.
12.13 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate which, by a happy coincidence, takes place in a week of such fast developments in the matter of internet access and charging.
The first challenge to Government is to get the market framework right. I shall begin my response to the debate by saying something about the nature of the framework that we are seeking to create. Our approach is summed up
204WH
in a simple rubric: competition where possible, regulation where necessary. Through the Competition Act 1998, the Government significantly strengthened the competition framework that we inherited. That Act came into effect last week, and it applies to all sectors, including telecommunications. It significantly strengthens the prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour, on cartels and on the abuse of dominant and monopoly positions by companies in any sector. By doing so, it will bring real advantages to British consumers.
The Government inherited a telecommunications sector in which competition was not driven entirely by the market. There remains a need for sector-specific regulation. I want to pay tribute to Oftel and its director general for the work done in discharging that regulatory function. However, competition and regulation are not mutually exclusive. As far as possible, regulation must be used to promote greater competition.
The policy strategy document recently published by Oftel makes it clear that organisation's determination to use its regulatory powers to promote fair competition, and to withdraw from regulation as competition takes effect in different parts of the telecommunications market. However, BT retains its dominant position with regard to the local loop. Interconnection is at the heart of moves by competitor retail operators to create a more competitive market. It is therefore essential that Oftel uses the powers available to it under the legislation covering telecommunications and competition.
I shall return to the specific questions of charging and the local loop in a moment, but I shall first say something about the Utilities Bill. It was designed to deliver—and will deliver—an improved system of pro-competition regulation in the electricity and gas sectors. I regret that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has denounced the Bill again today. I presume that that means that the Opposition want the Bill to be withdrawn completely, even though that would mean abandoning the real benefits for consumers that will stem from greater competition in the wholesale electricity markets.
The Utilities Bill contained a general provision that the Government will provide social and environmental guidance to the telecommunications industry regulators, to ensure that they take account of wider policy objectives.
Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend mentioned the environment, and I hope that she will allow me to raise the matter of the lack of control over the erection of masts for mobile telephone networks. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 covers such installations, which have aroused great public concern. Do the Government intend to have a dialogue with the regulators to ensure the regulation of that activity? Would it not be even better to amend the legislation, so that planning authorities would be able to control the spread of sites that are highly unacceptable? In my constituency, for example, a mast was erected just outside the bedroom window of a child suffering from leukaemia.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend earlier complained— understandably—that mobile telephones do not work properly in many parts of the highlands of Scotland.

205WH
However, there is a tension between the desire to achieve near-universal mobile telephony and worries about the siting of the masts that would make that possible. The specific health issues involved are being considered by the Stewart inquiry, and by a Committee of the Scottish Assembly. We will examine those matters in due course.
The Utilities Bill contained no proposals to deal with environmental issues by means of the guidance to the telecommunications regulator. However, the social guidance that we published for consultation some time ago covered the question of establishing a universal service for the sick and the disabled, and for elderly or poorly paid people, and dealt with issues of universal access in rural areas. It also covered the matter of access to the networks for emergency services.
Those are enormously important principles, and the Government stick by them. However, we will consider their implementation in the context of the communications review, to which I shall return in a moment.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton also raised the matter of consumer councils. My understanding is that they cannot be introduced without legislation. That is one reason why we originally decided to include telecommunications in the Utilities Bill. We still want to see strong and effective consumer councils for telecommunications, and we will look at the issue in the context of the overall review. I understand that the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association suggest that, as a stopgap measure, existing bodies such as the advisory committees on telecommunications should be given more resources. We will certainly have a look at that.
We have been in touch with the consumer bodies throughout the Bill's progress. However, in the light of our decision on the whole telecommunications review, the decision whether to retain the telecommunications element of the Bill had to be made very quickly given the progress that the Bill was making in Committee. We were therefore not able to take that decision in consultation with the consumer bodies or the industry. We had representations from the industry arising from the announcement about the White Paper on communications, and we took those into account.
Let me say a word or two more on the White Paper. It is at the heart of the revolution that is taking place in the economy and in society that telecommunications, broadcasting and computing are converging. We considered that issue in the Green Paper that we published in 1988 and the consultation exercise that led to the joint report last June of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the way ahead for regulating communications.
We have now decided that, although the industry has benefited from much closer co-operation between the different regulators, it makes sense to look afresh at what is the best legal and regulatory framework for a sector whose boundaries are changing so very fast. We will do that properly. Rather than simply saying, "This is what the policy will be", the Government will do it through a process of consultation and dialogue, first
206WH
leading up to the publication of a White Paper and then before the introduction of any Bill that may be necessary.
The White Paper will be very broad: it will consider the infrastructure and the appropriate framework for regulation of economic and access issues. It will consider the issues raised on broadcasting in particular about the regulation of content, just as it will look at media ownership rules and the role of public sector broadcasting. It is an essential piece of work, and I hope that many hon. Members will be closely involved.
The White Paper, which will be published later this year—not as late as November, I hope—will be an important milestone in ensuring that, as the industry and the market move very quickly, we have a regulatory system that is built for that purpose.
Mr. Connarty: I would like my hon. Friend to accept that, although Members on both sides of the House have made silly political capital out of the decision to withdraw telecommunications from the Utilities Bill, it was a very bold move and in line with what is required. I commend her for it, and I am sure that many other hon. Members will do so as well.
Ms Hewitt: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made an important point.
On charging and access, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that we want to see access to the internet for everybody who wants it by 2005, and earlier if possible. It is important to understand that universal access will come through various means. It will come through telephone lines, cable, wireless and satellite. It will come through a variety of devices—computers, televisions, mobile telephones and other devices that are only now coming out of the research laboratories and on to the market.
Competition is driving down internet access prices and gives consumers much greater choice of new tariff packages. That policy of competition is working. We have seen in the past two weeks announcements from BT, Telewest, AltaVista and, yesterday, from NTL, all offering free or very cheap internet access with a variety of models and packages.
Mr. Wyatt: The Minister may just recall—or perhaps not—that, in 1936 when television was launched, there was competition between lines 205 and 405. Finally, the civil service decided on 405. We could help the community in Britain by saying, "Here is a basic internet system. This is all it needs", rather than having the hundreds of different systems that are available.
Ms Hewitt: I do not remember 1936. My sense is that different consumers and businesses want different levels of access and packages of content. Rather than the Government saying, "This is to be the standard, the package or the tariff", it makes sense to create a competitive marketplace in which there will be different offerings, and consumers will have the choice to get what they need. In many cases, consumers will access the internet through different means at different times of the day and for different purposes.

207WH
We are driving towards competition between BT and other operators connecting to the local loop. There will be competition between the local loop and cable. There will be competition on the local loop, with the advent of local loop unbundling. There will be competition between wired—local loop and cable access—and wireless access which, in turn, will come from satellite, third-generation—indeed, second and a half generation—mobiles and from broadband wireless.
On Monday, I launched the first world auction for third-generation mobile spectrum, with 13 bidders. I believe that that auction will help to keep the United Kingdom ahead of the game.
Mr. Connarty: Has the Minister given further thought to what seems to be the contradiction that Vodafone and Orange, which are now one company, appear to be able to bid separately?
Ms Hewitt: That was a matter to which my right hon. Friend gave very careful thought before the auction rules were finalised. It would have been quite wrong for Orange, through no fault or action of its own, to have been debarred from taking part in the auction simply because of the coincidence of timing of the VodafoneMannesmann merger and the third generation auction. We have put in place extremely stringent safeguards to ensure that there is no collusion between Vodafone and Orange in their bidding in the auction. It will not be possible for both companies to hold licences, should they both succeed in getting them through the auction, if they remain part of the same merged company. So we have taken care of that point.
I hope to make an announcement shortly about the allocation of further wireless spectrum at the 28 to 40 gigahertz spectrum band for purposes of broadband fixed wireless access. That is very important.
208WH
Let me say something about the digital divide, which several of my hon. Friends have mentioned. We are determined to ensure that access to the internet is not reserved for the young, the techie and the wealthy. That is why we have worked so hard and fast to connect up schools, colleges and libraries across the country. That has been very successful. It is why, this year, we will be rolling out learning and access centres, particularly in the most disadvantaged communities, which many of my hon. Friends represent, as, indeed, do I.
In another month or so, we will be publishing the report of one of the social exclusion policy action teams on how to exploit information and communications technology to overcome social exclusion. An enormous leap forward will come from internet access through digital television and through third-generation mobile. It will bring the internet and interactive digital services generally within the reach of people who are never likely to want, or could never afford, a computer at home. It will be a very different world.
We are also looking closely at how to exploit the new technologies to open up access to employment, learning and other services for people with disabilities. Like the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Julia Schofield, the extraordinary woman who is blind and has done so much to advance the cause of user-friendly internet and web access. In Leicester, I saw a person with a very severe sight disability using voice recognition technology on a laptop to fulfil a demanding job at Voluntary Action Leicester.
In terms of online government—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. May I ask hon. Members who do not wish to remain for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly?

Housing (Norfolk)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Prior: In view of the Government's announcement yesterday on housing in the south-east, this debate is timely and the Government will probably be making decisions about housing in Norfolk in the next 10 days.
Any policy for housing in Norfolk or any other essentially rural county presents two key, and often contradictory, issues. The first is that current plans based on predict and provide, or more fashionably, in that wonderful Sir Humphreyish phrase, on "plan, manage, monitor", require a massive expansion in the number of new houses in rural areas. If that happens, much of our countryside and rural environment will be irreparably damaged.
The second issue is the high cost of housing, which makes it increasingly difficult for local people to afford to buy or rent their own homes. The 1999 survey of rural trends by the Countryside Agency noted that throughout the 1990s the gap between the need for affordable homes and those being built widened significantly.
I want to address both those issues. I turn first to the need, or perceived need, for new houses. The new housing requirement for Norfolk in the period from 1991 to 2016, as assessed by SCEALA—the Standing Conference on East Anglian Local Authorities—which represents the local authorities of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, is for 86,000 new houses. That is made up of net inward migration from outside Norfolk of 54,000 people, a net natural loss of population, which is the number of people dying over the number being born, of 5,000, and an increase of 37,000 due to a reduction in the size of households, which is an increase in the number of single-person homes.
The Government's panel subsequently increased the number of houses needed from 1995 to 2016 by 5,500. That gives a total of almost 100,000 new houses, which is a huge increase. Building those houses is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they are built, they will of course be lived in, and people will move into Norfolk, often from more urban and developed areas. That flies in the face of the Government's protestations that there is an urban renaissance and that they are encouraging more brownfield development.
Moreover, the Government's apparent conversion from predict and provide to plan, manage, monitor, which they announced yesterday, rings a little hollow in view of the plan for the south-east, which I hope will not be duplicated in East Anglia.
Most of Norfolk's countryside is still unspoiled and special. The countryside should not of course be preserved as it is in perpetuity—it will evolve—but it should not be built on and concreted over for all time. Housing brings with it more cars, wider roads, new roads, more pressure on schools and hospitals, more employment problems and more pressure on natural resources and, especially in Norfolk, on water.
210WH
New development must be sustainable. Sustainable development is not, as Professor Crow dismissively described it, merely a fashionable expression used as a device for saying no. Let us take the example of water. Norfolk is one of the driest and lowest-lying parts of Britain. The available water depends on aquifers, which store winter rain and are a finite resource. As the demand for water increases, the water available for the environment decreases. The expanding population of East Anglia, together with a per capita increase in water consumption, had led to a doubling of public water supply in the past 30 years.
Although there is still much that can be done to prevent wastage and to encourage more judicious use of water, there is only so much that can be achieved by managing water demand. In addition, given that part of the demand for water in Essex is met by the River Ouse in Norfolk, it has yet to be demonstrated that development levels in Essex will not have an adverse impact on Norfolk's water environment and resources. There will therefore be genuinely unsustainable growth in the demand for water if housing development is not kept to lower levels in Norfolk and Essex.
I do not want to see Norfolk becoming suburban and its rural character being eroded. I would not want a latter-day John Betjeman to write a poem about Norfolk in the same vein as his poem about Slough, but I fear that if the Government's housebuilding plans proceed apace, that is precisely what will happen.
There is a further problem with new housing in Norfolk. The Government have rightly stated that 60 per cent. of all new housing should be built on brownfield sites. I support that requirement, but in a rural county it will be much more difficult to achieve that proportion. SCEALA estimates that only 36 per cent. of new housing will be built on brownfield sites in Norfolk, with the remainder being on greenfield sites. That is another strong argument for reducing the number of new houses in Norfolk so that the brownfield percentage can increase.
It is also important that the release of greenfield land should take place only after what is called sequential testing. In simple terms, urban and brownfield sites should be used first, and greenfield last. So long as greenfield development is an easy option, developers are bound to avoid more difficult investment in brownfield sites. In that regard, I hope that the Government will consider reducing VAT on repairs and developments on brownfield land.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for adding that it is not only the location of new housing that is important, but its design and quality. Planners currently have the powers to prevent unsuitable alterations to listed buildings, but if buildings are not listed planners are powerless to prevent such alterations as putting PVC window frames into a Victorian house. Councils can do no more than give advice. As one of my constituents, Miss Fran Weatherhead, has aptly expressed it, at present it is a matter of hoping that owners will be sensitive to the appearance of their property and are not out for a quick fix. The planning rules for conservation areas in particular should be tightened to prevent inappropriate modifications being made to older houses.

211WH
To summarise, there is a danger that we are building so many new houses that Norfolk's character will change. Policies must take more account of sustainability, protection of the countryside and the regeneration of brownfield land. The Council for the Protection of Rural England said:
Planned expansion of the south-east—
and, I add, the whole of East Anglia—
spells sprawl and congestion in the region and continuing decay and social exclusion in other parts of the country.
I turn now to affordable housing. The Prime Minister's performance and innovation unit drew particular attention to this, and I hope that the Government's much-delayed rural White Paper will address this vital issue. In my constituency, many local people can no longer afford to live where they were born. In part, that has been caused by the number of second home owners, who own up to well over 50 per cent. of the houses in some villages. That has an effect on prices and on the viability of the local community.
There is no easy solution to high house prices, although I appreciate the force of the argument that local people should be able to get on to the housing ladder. I believe strongly that second home owners should pay the full council tax, not 50 per cent. as at present. That should be at the discretion of the local council, and the additional tax raised should be ring-fenced and made available for low-cost, affordable housing. That would be fair and would remove any local resentment. It would be levied only in districts where there is a concentration of second homes, and the proceeds would help local people on low incomes or with special needs who want to live locally. I am pleased that North Norfolk district council shares that view, and I am disappointed that the Government have so far shown such little interest in it.
In 1999, North Norfolk district council commissioned a housing needs study. It concluded that there is a need in North Norfolk for between 2,250 and 3,200 additional, affordable dwellings. The survey had similar results to those of the earlier and much wider-ranging CPRE report "Housing with Hindsight", which was published in 1996.
It has become clear to me that greater provision of social rented housing is the only practicable means of providing affordable housing for local people. I therefore support the efforts of North Norfolk district council to secure between 25 and 30 per cent. of social rented housing on eligible developments of more than 1 hectare or 25 dwellings. It is also right to adopt a flexible, negotiated stance with the developer, and not just a uniform, dogmatic one. There will of course have to be proper and transparent safeguards.
The Government are also suggesting exceptional developments of affordable housing in villages, outside agreed structure plans. For transport, employment and environmental reasons, those should be very exceptional and treated with great caution unless it can be shown that there is both overwhelming need and acceptance among the local community.
I have drawn attention to the dangers of building too many houses in the countryside and to the need for affordable housing for local people. I make one last point: please will the Government leave local authorities alone and allow them to make their own decisions? Yes,
212WH
they should give guidance, but they should also trust locally elected councillors to make the right decisions and stop second-guessing them. Let the housing policy for Norfolk, which will so much shape the county in future, be determined by people living in and representing what is still the finest county in Britain.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) rightly said, this is a very timely debate. He has raised important issues and represents a beautiful area of the country. I greatly sympathise with much of what he said; indeed, much of it is Government policy.
It always cheers me up to hear a Tory Member calling for more public spending on social housing. I gently point out—I do so only gently because he made a very moderate and sensible speech—that the problems that he described are in part a consequence of the social and economic policies pursued by successive Conservative Administrations, whom perhaps he and certainly many of his friends still support.
If you deliberately set out over a long period to redistribute wealth from the less fortunate to the fortunate, you are not entitled to be surprised when you find that some people can afford two houses and many cannot afford one. If you enthusiastically promote the sale of council housing—in Norfolk, a huge part of the housing stock has been sold in the past 15 or 20 years—and at the same time discourage the building of any more, you are not entitled to be surprised that there comes a day when many people can no longer afford to live in some of the more attractive areas of the country. That of course has implications for the provision of services—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I have never promoted the sale of council housing, particularly in Norfolk. When the hon. Member uses the word "you", he refers to me.
Mr. Mullin: I certainly would never suggest that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I recall—I am sure that it is within your recollection—when we had four successive Governments who did so. All I am doing is gently pointing out that that policy had advantages and that it is no part of the present Government's policy to reverse it. Indeed, the genie is out of the bottle; it is impossible to reverse. However, there were consequences, and the hon. Gentleman referred to some of them.
The hon. Gentleman raised three issues. The first was about the policy of predict and provide, which is no more appropriate to housing than it is to motorways, and of which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister formally announced the death yesterday—although I think that it died some years ago. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the shortage of affordable housing in Norfolk. Thirdly, he touched on the possibility of increasing the council tax on second homes.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend set out the Government's position on predict and provide. We are abandoning it in favour of a more flexible and

213WH
sustainable approach which takes account of a range of factors, including demographics, the capacity of the region to absorb growth and the impact of our policies on urban renaissance. We shall regularly monitor the indicators of housing provision instead of setting a target that will apply over 20 years. We shall monitor the market and demand for affordable housing and review the situation in order to adjust provision if indicators show that more or less housing is needed.
The new planning policy guidance note sets out the key elements of the Government's policy, which encourages greater choice for different sizes of household, greater affordability and more mixed development. It encourages the less profligate use of land—we have seen some very profligate use of land in many modern housing developments—and of course the use of brownfield sites before greenfield sites.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the national target for the use of brownfield land is 60 per cent., although there will obviously be local and regional variations. I understand his point that there is likely to be less brownfield land in his area of the country than in others, although substantial brownfield sites in Norwich, King's Lynn and Great Yarmouth are an obvious place to start. We are also anxious to see high-quality housing development and more imaginative thinking among planners and developers about designs and layouts.
That represents the most fundamental review of planning and housing for a generation, and sets what we hope will be a new, sustainable approach to planning, which demands the integration of planning, housing and transport, which is desirable, just as the hon. Gentleman said. I entirely agree with him.
On affordable housing, we are providing an additional £5 billion of resources in England over this Parliament to provide new social housing and to improve existing stock. That of course includes investing receipts from the sale of council housing, which the previous Government declined to do.
This matter is not just for the Government. Local planning authorities have an important part to play in increasing the provision of affordable housing. Unduly restrictive planning policy can drive up house prices and force more people to seek social housing, besides increasing the cost of providing it. Planning policy can also operate constructively to promote sustainable development by, for example, promoting re-use of derelict urban land and buildings, increasing housing densities and reducing the need for the use of the car.
Planning policy guidance note 3 recognises, however, that unmet need for affordable housing is a material planning consideration that may be taken into account in formulating development plan policies and in deciding planning applications. Planning authorities are encouraged to adopt policies that indicate targets for major sites and the intention to negotiate with developers the inclusion of affordable housing on sites above a given threshold.
Affordable housing policies may also be used to influence the mix of market housing, to ensure that more of it is in reach of people on modest incomes and to deliver housing for shared ownership or social letting. For the latter, Government guidance is that transfer of
214WH
serviced land or completed houses to a registered social landlord is the best way to ensure that they remain available for social letting.
Norfolk county council obviously recognises such guidance. The county has recently adopted a structure plan, which says:
Where there are local jobs and services or adequate public transport is available, affordable housing for those in need may be provided by seeking a proportion of affordable housing in larger schemes; and exceptionally—
the hon. Gentleman referred to this—
granting planning permission for affordable housing on the edge of or within villages on land not otherwise identified for development.
The county and district councils may seek to build on such an approach in their local plan as it comes up for revision. The North Norfolk local plan already contains such policies, but the council needs to take account of the new framework set out in PPG3 when it comes to revise the local plan. However, I accept that the planning system can make only a limited contribution—initiatives are required from other parties, including landowners and developers.
For 2000–01, the county of Norfolk has been allocated £25.4 million for its housing investment programme, which is a 46 per cent. increase on the previous year. North Norfolk has had an increase of 61 per cent. Those are substantial increases. As I said, one of the reasons for the shortage of affordable housing is that so many council houses were sold off under the Conservatives.
On giving local authorities discretion to charge full council tax on second homes, there is a case for reviewing the 50 per cent. discount. That matter was considered as part of a general review of council tax in the local government White Paper published in 1998. The conclusion at that time was that, generally, council tax was working. There are no plans to make changes in this Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman's point has been raised by other hon. Members representing areas in which there are large numbers of holiday homes and we shall keep the matter under review.
Incidentally, it always makes me nervous when Tory Members of Parliament ask for tax increases because I know that, were the Government to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches would jump up and down claiming that we had imposed another stealth tax. I hope that he has cleared his suggestion, which struck me as sensible, with the shadow Chancellor.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk made a sensible speech containing useful suggestions, many of which are contained in current Government policy. Many but not all of the problems that he describes are the consequences of social and economic policies pursued in the past by Governments whose members have, even now, not entirely repented of their ways. The Labour Government are doing their best to grapple with those consequences, but success will take some time. The genie is out of the bottle, but we are working on the problem and making progress.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to start the next debate.

Fire Safety
12.53 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: You took me by surprise by calling me to start the debate early, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My apologies if I was slow to rise to my feet.
I should declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of the Fire Protection Association, a not-for-profit organisation whose aim is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries and the huge costs incurred as a result of fire—an objective that I am sure all hon. Members share. I also helped to establish the all-party group on fire safety, of which I am co-chairman. In addition, I was a member of the London fire brigade for 23 years—for 13 as an operational firefighter, and for 10 on secondment as an official of the Fire Brigades Union. I can therefore claim to be familiar with the subject.
United Kingdom fire authorities, supported by the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and many private sector partners, are successfully raising public awareness of the value of fitting smoke detectors in the home. In its report "Safe as Houses", which was published by the Home Office in November 1997, the national community fire safety centre made several key recommendations, central to which was the recommendation that the primary focus of the fire service be shifted from firefighting to fire prevention. The report also recommended that community fire safety should become a statutory duty and that the prevention work of brigades and the Home Office should be united under a single umbrella in terms of programmes and objectives. That is now happening.
Notwithstanding all that, fire statistics remain a cause for concern. In 1997—the latest year for which UK figures are available—723 people died in fires and 18,600 were injured as a result of fires. Previous figures are just as worrying: in 1994, there were 641 deaths and 17,000 injuries; in 1995, 736 deaths and more than 17,000 injuries; and in 1996, 709 deaths and more than 18,000 injuries. The majority of those deaths and injuries resulted from fire in the home, which accounts for more than 60 per cent. of all building fires and more than 75 per cent. of all casualties. Someone is three times more likely to die in a fire at home as they are anywhere else. Insurance claims arising from fires totalled £615 million in 1994, £700 million in 1995, £707 million in 1996 and £739 million in 1997. Those figures do not take account of the many fires that occur in uninsured buildings. The latest total estimated cost of fire to the UK economy is £4 billion.
Fire is indiscriminate about where it strikes, as the tragic deaths of the late Member for Romsey and his wife show. Thirty per cent. of those who die in fires are over 65—the hon. Gentleman fitted that profile. However, those most at risk from fire are the less fortunate members of our society—those at the bottom end of the social scale: the very young or old, those who are physically or mentally incapacitated and who cannot help themselves, and those who are under the influence of drink or drugs account for more than 50 per cent. of all fire casualties. The politics of fire mean that people at the bottom end of the social scale are more
216WH
likely to suffer injury or worse by fire than the more fortunate. As in health and education, it is possible to buy one's way out: double glazing and good insulation are far safer than paraffin heaters, poor wiring and candles.
A category of building that would benefit greatly from the introduction of residential fire sprinklers is houses in multiple occupation—HMOs. That category encompasses bedsits, shared housing, households with lodgers, purpose-built HMOs, hostels, guest and boarding houses, bed and breakfasts and self-contained converted flats. In the UK, 6.25 per cent. of the population live in HMOs, but statistics reveal that 28 per cent. of all fire deaths and 36 per cent. of all fire injuries occur in HMOs. In real terms, those percentages translate as 227 people dying and 6,240 being injured by fire each year in HMOs.
I welcome the announcement by the Home Office of the setting of targets for raising public awareness of fire safety and for reducing the number of fire deaths in residential buildings by 20 per cent. by the end of 2003. However, some would say that we should be more ambitious. The efforts of many individuals and organisations to reduce the number of fires should be applauded: those include the lobby for a fire safety Bill, the new national fire safety forum and the national smoke detector campaign. I have already mentioned the work throughout the country of the national community fire safety centre, which the Government have backed to the tune of £13 million to £14 million.
A less well-known but equally valuable tool in reducing the number of casualties and fire costs is the residential fire sprinkler. Although sprinkler systems have been installed in commercial properties for many years—the first being installed in the Theatre Royal, Drury lane in 1812—residential sprinklers are a relatively new concept in the United Kingdom.
Results from trials in the United States are encouraging. A large number of American towns and cities now require sprinklers to be fitted in new residential properties. The US Senate is considering a Bill promoting the installation of sprinklers in public and private college and university housing and dormitories.
In Scottsdale, Arizona, for example, all residential properties must have sprinklers fitted. Over a 10-year period there have been no fire deaths. During the same period, injury and property damage have been reduced by more than 80 per cent. In addition, there has been a 95 per cent. reduction in water usage for fire control.
Available figures also show that in the UK there is not one recorded case of multiple death by fire in buildings protected by sprinklers.
Recently I was fortunate enough to be invited by the Wiltshire fire brigade to view a demonstration of a domestic sprinkler installation at Westlea fire station. I understand that Ministers and local Members of Parliament have had the opportunity to witness similar demonstrations. I have also seen the video available from the Wiltshire fire authority, showing the comparison between a sprinkler-protected and a non-protected property. I shall return to that shortly. The installation at Westlea fire station has been in operation since 1990 and has been visited by hundreds of people. To date, not one demonstration has failed.

217WH
On the same day, I visited a project in Studley Green, an estate in Trowbridge, Wiltshire. Studley Green was considered a sink estate, with all the social difficulties associated with large, rundown estates. There had been many costly fires there and I was told that the estate was well known to the local fire brigade.
I should make special reference to the chief fire officer of Wiltshire, Mr. John Craig, who has been actively pursuing the case for residential sprinklers for the past 10 years and is making significant progress. In 1998, Mr. Craig, who is also a member of the Residential Sprinkler Association, became aware that 212 homes were to be demolished and rebuilt on the estate. With his knowledge of the American trials, Mr. Craig suggested that the rebuilt homes should be fitted with sprinklers. Agreement was reached with the appropriate bodies—McAlpine, the builders, the local housing association and the local fire authority—which recognised that that was the first step in developing the first sprinkler-protected major housing estate in Europe.
The tenants on the estate were consulted about the project at an early stage. The proposals were met with initial scepticism and hostility because of widespread misconceptions about sprinklers. Local residents were therefore invited to witness the test that I mentioned earlier, in which two identical properties with the same furnishings inside were set alight, and the local fire brigade was notionally called.
After seven minutes, one of the properties was a torch: wind had got into the front room and the entire building was ablaze. Not surprisingly, that was the nonsprinkler-protected property. In the sprinkler-protected property, the fire was contained in one room and was extinguished when the fire service notionally turned up. The hostility and scepticism of the local residents entirely evaporated.
The hostility is simply explained by the misconceptions regarding sprinklers. People think that they will have to put up with unsightly pipework and obtrusive sprinkler heads, like those that they see in buildings such as multi-storey car parks. In reality, domestic installations have no visible pipework or sprinkler heads. The heads are installed in a fitting no larger than the average ceiling rose.
People fear that the system will be activated accidentally by cigarette smoke or burning toast, but sprinklers are activated only by high temperatures. Accidental activation does not happen. It is commonly believed that, in the event of fire, the sprinklers throughout the building are activated, causing huge amounts of water to flood the household. In fact, sprinklers use between one 25th and one 100th of the amount of water used by a single fire brigade hose. Only the sprinkler head situated directly over the fire would be activated, not the entire system.
When fire broke out at the Queen's residence at Windsor, a Minister in the previous Administration was quoted anecdotally as saying, "Thank goodness the property was not sprinklered." In fact, had sprinklers been installed, the fire would have been contained within the single area of Windsor where it started until the fire brigade arrived, and we would not have lost so many national treasures.
218WH
Installation work in Studley Green is well under way, and the tenants in the protected buildings are expressing great confidence in the system. From being seen as a group of people near the bottom of the social scale, they now see themselves as being valued, because their safety is being taken seriously, and also because of the attention that the project is receiving. A commonly expressed view is that the residents now have peace of mind with regard to fire safety.
I met two of the residents. One was a lone parent with three kids, and the other was the parent of a child who was a fire-raiser. The parent of the three children told me that she slept in her bed easily. Had the building been protected by a smoke detector, her fear was that she would have had to choose which of her three children she would rescue if a fire broke out in the middle of the night. She now knows that every room in the house is protected, and that all her children can sleep in safety.
In the other family, the child had a record of arson, having burned down his previous home and damaged one of the local schools. The parents used to go round the house every night confiscating all items that could have led to combustion —matches, lighters and so on. They still do that, but they know that if the child manages to find such an item and continues in his dangerous habits, he and their home will be protected.
Despite residents' initial reservations about sprinkler installation, they are now convinced of the benefits. On a private estate being built next door, new residents are asking why their homes are not protected in the same way.
I ask the Minister to consider several points. Should the Government do more to promote the installation of residential sprinklers on target estates as part of regeneration schemes, with encouragement being available, for example, through the Housing Corporation, by way of grants to housing associations, particularly where there is a history of fires? In my area, there was a fatality only 36 hours ago, which is being investigated.
What progress is being made in the award of a British standard for residential sprinklers? That would be valued by the industry as demonstrating recognition, and would ensure that, across the country, when people install residential sprinklers, they are buying a product that has been tested to the appropriate standard.
Should the building regulations in due course require the installation of residential sprinklers for new build and regeneration schemes? The cost in the new build in Wiltshire is £1,000 per dwelling on average. The benefits are priceless. The cost of a retrospectively fitted system is about £1,500.
In conclusion, I shall quote from the paper presented by Chief Fire Officer Craig to this week's local government conference in Southampton. Referring to the first life saved by a residential sprinkler system in the UK, Mr. Craig reported:
It only recently came to light that the first activation of a domestic sprinkler system in the UK happened at Piddletrenthide Vicarage in Dorset in June 1997. The vicar's three year old son was playing with matches and set fire to a dog's bed. The bedding was filled with plastic granules. The sprinkler system operated faultlessly and quickly extinguished the fire in the utility room, raising the alarm automatically at the same time.
The family were at the bottom of the garden at the time, and took a moment to get back to the house.

219WH
Mr. Craig continued:
The child was wet but unharmed and his father has stated that he thinks it possible that the boy could have died or, at least, suffered injury, but for the effectiveness of the sprinklers. Damage to the room was very slight. There was no damage to the rest of the house.
I congratulate the Residential Sprinkler Association and Sir George Pigot, and the British Automatic Sprinkler Association and its secretary, Bernadette, on promoting a cause that I believe will be part of the future of fire safety. We are making progress in developing safer homes. I know that the Minister is personally responsible for much of the regeneration of estates that have been neglected for decades, particularly in constituencies such as mine. Residential sprinklers are a tool for the future, and I would welcome any encouragement that the Government can give to promote them.
1.10 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced the subject. He has considerable expertise and practical experience based on many years of working in the cause of firefighting, and he introduced the debate in an exemplary manner.
My hon. Friend has given me pause for thought. His historical anecdote about the first recorded installation of a sprinkler in the Theatre Royal, Drury lane in 1812 made me reflect that if the Muscovites had been slightly quicker off the mark and up to speed, the course of world history would have changed and Moscow would not have burned when Napoleon reached it in that same year. However, such speculation will not yield practical consequences, and I shall revert immediately to the subject of our debate.
I am concerned about the number of deaths and injuries that occur each year in fires in residential accommodation. It is a serious matter, and it is important to learn lessons from fires that have occurred and to take all reasonable steps to prevent loss of life and injuries through fires.
The Department has a contract with the fire research station, which is part of the Building Research Establishment, to investigate fires in buildings, including residential accommodation, that could have implications for building regulations, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The contract with the fire research station enables us to consider amendments to the building regulations that could have a bearing on life safety. My hon. Friend knows that building regulations are made primarily to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings; they do not cover property protection. My hon. Friend rightly focused his remarks on the safety of people.
Guidance that will tend to satisfy the fire aspects of the building regulations is given in approved document B on fire safety. The guidance aims to ensure that buildings are as safe as can be reasonably expected while giving designers as much flexibility as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, a revised edition of approved document B was published at the beginning of this year. It will come into force on 1 July.
220WH
The 2000 edition of approved document B was produced after widespread consultation and with extensive input from many people, including a working party of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. As with any amendments to regulations, the cost implications have to be calculated, and they are documented in a regulatory impact assessment.
We have progressed a long way with many life-safety issues through the 2000 edition of approved document B. For example, the latest edition suggests that all single-storey retail buildings with a floor area of 2,000 sq m or more must be provided with a sprinkler installation. It replaces current guidance, in the 1992 edition of the approved document, which suggests that a building can be of unlimited size without sprinklers being fitted. Our decision to amend the guidance was taken in response to representations from many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town. It has been warmly welcomed by those concerned with safety and the risks of fire in such structures.
It was suggested that smoke alarms, which are essential for giving early warning of fire, should be provided in new dwellings. That proposal was incorporated in the 1992 edition of approved documents. We have considerably strengthened that guidance in the 2000 edition to include the provision of smoke alarms in loft conversions in existing two-storey houses. The guidance has also been extended to cover most other non-domestic buildings. We have also updated the guidance so that it falls in line with the relevant British standards on smoke alarms.
Early warning of fire in domestic properties is an important life-safety feature, which should enable people to escape from a fire before it escalates into a threat to life. By giving guidance on smoke alarms in approved document B for dwellings and other buildings, we fully acknowledge the need to take account of life safety.
My hon. Friend referred to the Studley Green project, which had already been drawn to my attention. I know about the residential sprinkler installation project that is taking place in Studley Green in Trowbridge in Wiltshire. I understand that 212 new houses are being fitted with sprinklers. I fully support the initiative and I look forward to seeing the evidence of the outcome of the installations and any reports that may be produced as a consequence of the project. I noted my hon. Friend's comments on his visit and experience. I hope to hear many more reports and to draw the necessary conclusions.
I fully understand that more widespread installation of sprinklers in domestic property could be beneficial to safety and property protection. Although we currently have no plans to include in the building regulations the provision of sprinkler installations in residential or domestic buildings, I am aware of the growing support for the use of such systems in higher-risk residential properties, such as houses in multiple occupation, to which my hon. Friend referred. We intend to consider that in future.

221WH
As with the provision of sprinklers in large single-storey retail buildings, any decision would need to take full account of a range of views and expert advice; it would also require a regulatory impact assessment. In the meantime, the Department has informally supported domestic sprinkler installations when they are considered necessary as a compensatory feature.
Sometimes the normal fire safety recommendations, especially on alterations and extensions, that approved document B provides cannot be effected in older or listed buildings. Such circumstances can arise, for example, when a loft conversion is made to a two-storey house and a protected stair cannot be provided in accordance with the guidance in approved document B. That usually arises because the existing stair leads to a ground floor living room, which is too small to accommodate a protected route to the final exit door. In the case of listed buildings, considerations of heritage and the preservation of historic buildings militate against such provisions. In such cases, Department officials suggest that the provision of a domestic sprinkler installation on the ground floor of the property may be a solution. I support that pragmatic approach.
Sprinkler installations are a useful compensatory feature in residential accommodation such as nursing homes, where the more usual passive fire precautions such as fire separation and compartmentalisation cannot be provided.
I have already referred to HMOs, and I accept that they represent a high fire safety risk. Often, that unfortunately reflects the occupancy profile that is associated with such properties. As my hon. Friend knows, fire is only one of many hazards in such accommodation where tenants are often exposed to a variety of problems that relate to the poor quality of the accommodation and, often, the management. The Government are therefore committed to introducing a
222WH
mandatory licensing scheme for all HMOs. The Department also commissioned a report on fire risks in HMOs. That report recommends that the provision of sprinkler installations in HMOs should be considered. We are carefully considering that recommendation.
My hon. Friend referred to British standards. There is no British standard for domestic sprinkler systems. The Department and the Home Office have been considering the matter and working closely with the British Standards Institution to produce such a standard. The standard is being developed in two parts.
The first part deals with sprinkler systems for residential occupancies. It will make recommendations on the design, installation, components, water supplies, commissioning, maintenance and testing of fire sprinkler systems that are installed for life-safety purposes, with obvious additional benefits for property protection. The first part is due to be published in draft next month.
The second part covers components, including sprinkler heads, test methods and the specification for residential and domestic sprinklers. I understand that work on the drafting has begun and, following a proper consultation, I hope that both parts will become full British standards in due course.
I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates from my remarks that we fully recognise the importance of fire safety in all buildings, including domestic and residential properties. We have recently issued a revised edition of approved document B, and draft British standards will be published shortly. We are preparing arrangements for a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs and I can assure my hon. Friend that the merits of residential sprinkler installations will be a proper subject for consideration in future revisions of the building regulations.
1.20 pm
Sitting suspended.

Pathology Services
1.30 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am pleased to have a chance to revisit the issue of the quality of the working conditions for staff in pathology departments throughout the country. I acknowledge that the Minister has already responded to this issue. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) last year raised concerns about work in this field. My aim is not to repeat those points, but to raise issues that have come up since then, and to urge the Minister to act swiftly and decisively.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I am sorry, but I think that the Minister has an adviser sitting beside him.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): No, he is my parliamentary private secretary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg your pardon.
Mr. Oaten: I am delighted that there are more than two people in the Chamber. It is welcome to see the Minister's parliamentary private secretary in his place.
I am seeking from the Minister an update on conditions for pathology staff, and some decisive remarks about the timing and the process for improving their working conditions. It is encouraging that there has been cross-party support on this issue. I was pleased yesterday to sign the early-day motion proposed by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin), which notes that NHS scientific staff have received pay increases less than those awarded to comparable staff covered by the pay review body.
My personal involvement in this issue followed my visit a couple of weeks ago to the pathology department at the Royal Hampshire County hospital in my constituency. I confess that I went there with some trepidation. I usually pass out at the sight of blood, so the prospect of being shown lots of test tubes filled me with some dread. It was a squeamish experience, but I got over it by listening to staff and watching them perform their high-quality work.
During my visit, I met many of the pathology staff at all levels. My local Echo newspaper was right to describe them as
the hidden army of the NHS.
Laboratory scientists work behind the scenes, and are regarded as backroom men and women whose work in pathology saves lives.
A common public perception of pathology is that it is about post mortems and cutting up bodies. Endless television programmes reinforce that view. But pathology provides many vital services for the living—it is not just about examining why people have died. It is the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin and nature of disease. We need only cast our minds back to the recent flu outbreak to realise the pressure that those departments can be under and the importance of their work. The pressure is enormous.
224WH
In the Royal Hampshire hospital, 22,000 tests are carried out each week. I understand that that is typical of hospitals of a similar size throughout the country. Through such tests, biochemical scientists are able to diagnose hundreds of conditions, including life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, meningitis and, sadly, HIV. Figures suggest that demand for their services is on the increase. In the Royal Hampshire, the work load has increased by 60 per cent. in the past 10 years. Other hospitals have experienced similar increases.
Against that backdrop of an enormous throughput of tests and the massive rise in demand for pathology services, the NHS owes a tremendous debt to staff who work under these conditions and whose pay has not increased to reflect their increased work load.
During my visit to the Royal Hampshire hospital I spoke to science graduate Alex Walster, aged 22. He is one of three scientific officers who are training in the pathology department. His salary falls short of £9,000, which is £2,000 less than the salary that he was earning a few weeks before he took up that job, when he was working in a chicken factory testing chicken for salmonella. I think that that is a tragic story. A graduate who wants to use his skills to benefit sick people and to cure illnesses earned more when he was diagnosing salmonella in chicken.
I heard from another trainee, Sarah Lowdon, aged 23, who is suffering similar hardship. Sarah showed me a petri dish and told me that she was called out at 3 am to diagnose meningitis in the blood. That same evening, she went to work in a bar, which she must do to supplement her income. She received a call-out fee of £13 to do that test, which helped to save a child's life by monitoring the meningitis. She works four hours in the pub in the evening and earns the same money. She looked exhausted. I assumed that that was because of the pressure of work, but it was because she has to work in a bar most evenings to supplement her income.
I represent a constituency where accommodation is unaffordable for people on such low salaries. Even with the extra income that Sarah earns from her bar work, she cannot afford to live in Winchester near her place of work. She must commute daily from Portsmouth, which adds to the length of her working day. That problem was also experienced by the third trainee to whom I spoke, who could not keep up the costs of shared accommodation in Winchester. Not long after he started work at the hospital, he was forced to move back home with his parents, and now faces a 40-mile daily journey to work.
I should like to remind the Minister that in his response to the debate that took place in December, he touched on the question of salaries for trainee biomedical scientists. He said that they had been offered a 26 per cent. pay rise. It was welcome that the Government had recognised that they needed to support trainees at the lower end of the salary scale. Will he comment on the claim by the Institute of Biomedical Science that the 26 per cent. increase affects no more than 100 trainees out of a total work force of some 22,000? Even with that 26 per cent. increase, trainees still earn less than £9,500. Although welcome, the increase has not gone far enough and has not been broad enough to have made the difference that I am sure the Government intended.

225WH
We are all aware of the debate about the quality of pay for NHS staff. It is easy for Opposition Members to argue that more money should be thrown at the problem. In this case, however, biochemical scientists have, for the past 20 years, received lower rises than other NHS staff. Like my constituents, many of them rely on overtime payments and have to work 50 hours a week to supplement their salaries.
I am sure that the Minister will remind me that through the "working together" programme, the Government are rightly reviewing the pay system in consultation with the Manufacturing, Science and Finance trade union. That process is expected to produce an agreed package later this year. I hope that the Minister will give more details on the timing of that, and tell us how those negotiations are going.
Although that review is welcome, it is odd that other professional staff in the NHS have already had their pay reviews completed in advance of the "working together" programme. Why is it proving so difficult for this particular group of individuals? It is making morale in the profession much worse.
Ultimately, if these issues are not tackled patients will suffer. If hospitals cannot recruit and retain suitable trained staff, there will be a knock-on effect on the throughput of work, which will not be delivered effectively. Indeed, alarming new evidence clearly shows that NHS trust laboratories are already experiencing recruitment and retention problems.
Research published in January by the Institute of Biomedical Science found that 88 per cent. of all trust laboratories were understaffed, and 66 per cent. had unfilled vacancies. There was a large shortfall in staff throughout the country, and 97 per cent. of respondents to the survey said that pay levels were the key to recruitment difficulties. When interviewed, 61 per cent. of individuals who had left jobs in pathology in the health service said that low pay was their reason for leaving.
My hospital is lucky that it has suitable trainees who are prepared to suffer financial hardship to pursue what they regard as a worthwhile career. Other hospitals are not so lucky. There are similar recruitment problems at higher levels of pathology. A recent national advertisement issued by my hospital for the position of area manager received just three applications. A potential applicant from Swindon was put off applying by local house prices. The successful candidate from Worksop turned the job down because she could not afford the price of accommodation. I know that the Government have recognised that problem through London weighting allowances, but could the Minister comment on some of the difficulties that regions outside London have with high prices?
Seven years ago, a study of pathology services by the Audit Commission concluded that improved communication was needed between those working in pathology and health managers, and recent research suggests that the problem still exists. About half the trusts that responded to the survey believed that biomedical scientist recruitment and retention problems were not being recognised by human resources directors. Even fewer thought that their problems were
226WH
being recognised by trust chief executives, and only 10 per cent. of those working in pathology believed that their local authorities understood their difficulties.
Perhaps the most worrying conclusion of the research was that 76 per cent. of NHS trusts were using inappropriate staff groups to cover biomedical scientist duties. I have heard alarming suggestions that in some hospitals pathology departments are close to being run by agency staff. I fear that, as work load pressures increase in laboratories, the number of mistakes will also increase as staff members are continually chopped and changed and, owing to recruitment difficulties, agency staff are brought in.
It is time that pathology staff were fully recognised and rewarded for their major contribution to patient care. It is wrong to pass off well-qualified, dedicated young people as trainees, on salaries of less than £10,000 a year. It is wrong for people who are responsible for diagnosing life-threatening illnesses, and who work exhausting hours, to be forced to take second jobs.
The issue of the welfare of biomedical scientists in the NHS has been ducked for far too long. I hope that the Minister will refer specifically to the pay and conditions of biomedical scientists, rather than just to broader NHS salaries, and will give a clear indication that the Government value the contribution of those working in what I fear is increasingly becoming a Cinderella service.
1.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing the debate, which gives me an opportunity to stress the importance of NHS pathology, to speak of the improvements that we are making in staff pay and conditions, and to draw attention to the excellent services provided by pathologists and laboratories.
Pathology services play an integral part in effective NHS treatment, the diagnosis of illness and the early detection of disease, the provision of evidence-based care and the protection of public health. The quality of the service is paramount, and we are taking wide-ranging action to ensure that the performance of laboratories meets national standards. Since December 1997, quality assurance measures have been strengthened and most laboratories have succeeded in obtaining accreditation. That is a testament to the hard work and commitment of the staff involved.
Nevertheless, laboratory performance is kept under close review. Pathology services are not perfect, and there will always be particular elements that need attention. In the very few cases in which concern has been expressed about a laboratory's performance, swift action has been and will continue to be taken.
Quality in pathology services is maintained at three levels: by laboratory accreditation, by state registration of staff, and by the underpinning of education and training programmes. The accreditation procedure is part of an overall quality assurance programme, and shows that a laboratory is operating according to defined standards of practice that have been independently confirmed. The application process itself entails exacting work on the part of the laboratory, and requires it to examine a number of aspects of its operation ranging from health and safety to staffing. As

227WH
a result of engaging in the process, laboratories gain detailed knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, and can begin to address the weaknesses. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the pathology service at Royal Hampshire County hospital is fully accredited in all six areas of pathology: microbiology, histology, haematology, biology, immunology and public health.
We are not complacent, however. We are determined to modernise the NHS as a whole, and pathology is no exception. Successive reviews of pathology services conducted over the past 10 years by the Audit Commission and the NHS executive have identified a long-standing need for us to reconfigure and invest in pathology provision in England. We are acting on those reviews; we want to reconfigure the service, improve quality and efficiency and meet the changing demands of a modern NHS.
Last year, we embarked on a long-term pathology modernisation programme, overseen by an independent steering group representing a broad range of professional expertise, in order to ensure that developments are in tune with the many diverse facets of the NHS pathology service. To launch the programme and to put in train exemplar initiatives, we allocated £5 million of capital in the current financial year for pathology modernisation projects. We have identified five areas requiring modernisation: the needs of inner cities, the needs of isolated rural areas, the need for innovation in pathology provision, the role of information management technology and the need for modest modernisation initiatives. We intend to allocate a further £15 million in the next financial year to enable larger rationalisation to take place.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that information useful as a context, reinforcing our central commitment to quality and our measures to bring about accreditation and investment. Recent media concern about staffing levels will have undoubtedly led to public concern about the quality of services. We should also bear in mind what is currently available, so that public confidence is not damaged.
One report was alleged—not, of course, by its authors, but by its interpreters—to show that unqualified staff were conducting laboratory tests. That allegation is entirely untrue, and we considered it serious enough to issue a statement jointly with the Institute of Biomedical Science refuting it. A corresponding statement was made by Clinical Pathology Accreditation UK Ltd, refuting allegations that clerical staff were playing a role in reading and interpreting test results. It confirmed that NHS laboratories provide a high-quality service—indeed, I think that it said "second to none".
It is true that, at present, laboratories contain a number of support staff who are trained in-house to carry out a number of tasks under the supervision of qualified staff, but quality services can be provided only by quality staff, and work must be "signed or by them. There is a range of skilled staff: clinical and biomedical scientists—also called medical laboratory scientific officers, or MLSOs—and medical laboratory technical and support staff.
For the first time since the foundation of the NHS, our national service frameworks to deal with, for instance, coronary heart disease—in the case of one
228WH
launched this week—and mental illness provide standards against which we can marry service, resource and staff planning. Pathology will play a crucial part in the work of the frameworks. We are determined to ensure that those three elements come together, so that we can make certain that the right pathology staff and services are in place to support the frameworks.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue of pay is important. Current pay for clinical scientists ranges from £13,000 to £54,000, and for biomedical scientists from £7,400 to £32,000. Our pay offer for the current financial year—now included in the offer of a three-year deal—seeks to address the problem of low pay at the bottom end of the biomedical scientists' scale by raising the salary to £9,400. That is an increase of 26 per cent.
All scientists have been offered at least 3 per cent., which is considerably higher than the rate of inflation. About half of all biomedical scientists—some 6,000, in the lowest grades—have been offered 7 per cent. to deal with special recruitment problems. Trainee biomedical scientists have been offered an enhanced deal as well. There are about 1,000, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, some 100 have been offered 26 per cent. The rest have been offered increases ranging from nearly 7 per cent. to 22 per cent. through a restructuring of their pay scale. That is a fair offer in current circumstances. We set out to target funds where the need was demonstrably greatest—in recruitment and retention. That is a bigger problem with some staff groups than others.
Last year, we carried out a survey of NHS staff vacancies in all staff groups. About 98 per cent. of people responded. It found that, across the board, pathology staff were in a relatively healthy position compared with other disciplines, and showed that hardto-fill vacancies—those lasting more than three months—accounted for only 0.9 per cent. of vacancies across the discipline as a whole. However, there is a problem in recruiting staff at the bottom end of the biomedical scientist scale. We recognised that and have offered larger increases to staff at that end of the profession. That means that some pathology staff will receive more than review body staff: biomedical scientists will receive up to 7 per cent., and trainees up to 26 per cent., which compares favourably with the 4.7 per cent. that was awarded to many, although not all, nurses.
Local employers already have some flexibility within the existing national Whitley system to offer pay rates that are attractive enough to get staff with the skills that are needed. There is, for example, the provision within Whitley to restructure on-call and call-out payments to suit local service organisations. That action has been taken by NHS employers, including those at Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust, to pay staff more attractively to ensure key services are provided when they are needed.
At Winchester, that means that staff working in biochemistry and haematology may have their annual pay increased by £3,744 for providing on-call services twice a month. I am informed that the extra increase is paid to 13 out of the 15 biomedical scientists at Winchester who work in biochemistry and haematology. Having said that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the current pay system is out of date and in need of review. That is why, last year, we published "Agenda for Change", which gives detailed proposals

229WH
for modernising the way in which the NHS rewards its staff. We want a new system based on efficiency, fairness, flexibility and partnership.
To free the time to design that new system properly, among other reasons, we have made a pay offer well ahead of inflation for 1999 to 2002. Our intention is to give staff security about their pay over that period while we continue to negotiate a new pay system that will give all staff better career progression, will give them fairer rewards for taking on extended roles, and will widen their skills and encourage people to work in teams. We want the new pay system to deliver modern conditions of service and to provide a fair basis for pay rises in the security of a national pay system.
Modernising the pay system is one of our key priorities. It will be fair for staff, but, critically, also help to deliver new patient-centred services that both the Government and staff want. Our discussions have been constructive and positive. We recognise that, for various reasons, some smaller groups of highly qualified health professionals are outside the remit of the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body. Talks are under way with staff and employer representatives around "Agenda for Change." Those will include discussion on whether any new groups should come under the pay review body. It is not intended to change in any way the fundamentally professional coverage of the body.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants further information about where and when decisions and announcements will be made. As I have said to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), it is too early to comment on proposals for specific staff groups. The negotiations are being dealt with as a package—as a whole. However, I am confident that pay modernisation will bring benefits to all NHS staff, whether or not they are covered by a review body.
Consultations and discussions are going ahead. They are constructive and useful. The MSF union—I declare an interest as I am a member—is, I am pleased to say, playing an important and major part in the talks and ensuring that scientists' views are well represented. The hon. Gentleman asked about time scales. I like to feel
230WH
that, if our negotiations are successful, we could have a fully agreed package by the summer, with implementation starting next spring, but clearly that depends on the progress of the negotiations.
To get the work force we need in pathology, as elsewhere, we need to attract the right calibre of staff to employment. When we do, we need to ensure that we can keep them. Our wider human resources "working together" programme concentrates on providing a better human resources framework for the whole work force. That includes scientists and technicians. They are not one of the largest staff groups, but they are vital, as the hon. Gentleman said, to a first-class health care system. That means looking at issues such as flexible working patterns, flexible working life and staff participation.
We will target recruitment and retention at wider groups of staff. For understandable reasons, to date the more visible focus of recruitment and retention work has been on larger staff groups such as nurses, but the new recruitment and retention unit has met leading members of the scientist professional organisations and is working with them and NHS employers to draw together a new strategy to raise the profile of the work of scientists and technicians in the NHS. That will publicise the work and career prospects available. It will help to underpin effective national recruitment activity, to promote return to practice and to ensure that there is modern, up-to-date careers advice. We have established an annual recruitment and retention survey, so that we always know that we have the right information on which to act.
Pathology services are too important for us to be complacent about the issues that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. The basic pay of some biomedical scientists, including trainees, is low. Employers can and do supplement that in a variety of ways to attract quality staff. There is an offer on the table that would make a significant difference to some key groups of staff. What is key is to recognise that accreditation of NHS pathology laboratories is high both in quality and coverage. That provides safeguards for patient services.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Euro
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent to date by his Department and by bodies funded by his Department in connection with the National Changeover Plan; on what headings this money has been spent; and how much his Department plans to spend on implementing the plan over the next 12 months. [112140]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 February 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 29 February 2000, Official Report, column 233W.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public employees have been involved in legal work relating to Senator Pinochet since October 1998. [113512]

  Mr. Straw
  At any one time two Home Office lawyers had significant involvement in the case. A Treasury Solicitor lawyer had conduct of the case for litigation purposes, and lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were from time to time significantly involved. Lawyers from other Government Departments have also played a role.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to the(a) central and (b) local government of the containment of Senator Pinochet broken down into (a) police, (b) legal and (c) accommodation costs. [113600]

  Mr. Straw
  For the information requested, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary on 2 March 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, column WA87.

  Senator Pinochet's accommodation costs were not met from public funds.

  Vivisection Investigation
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the outcome of his investigation into allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection against Harlan-Hill Crest. [113893]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the Home Office investigative report into allegations which were made available to the Home Office by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) on 29 June 1999. The BUAV's allegations were 662W
  based on the evidence of a sympathiser working undercover at the establishment. The establishment is designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  I received the Chief Inspector's report on 17 December after a thorough investigation into a complex series of allegations. Generally, the establishment was found to be well run and the level of compliance generally good. I did, however, take action against one breach of a condition of certification—that two animal rooms were not identified in documentation as having been checked as required on two dates during the last two years. The Certificate holder received an admonition for this apparent lapse and I sought reassurances from management about staffing levels. These have been given.

  Since Christmas 1999, officials have been arranging with the company, its customers and key staff, to lift confidentiality of material in the report whose disclosure would have been contrary to Section 24 of the 1986 Act, as being provided in confidence. A small number of areas remain censored because they represent commercially sensitive or personnel information which cannot be disclosed.

  The greater number of blocked-out areas in the report stem from the BUAV not lifting the confidentiality of material stemming from the undercover investigator's videotapes, diary and interview with the Inspectorate in time for publication this week. When we indicated that we would publish the document in this form, BUAV then indicated late yesterday that they might be prepared to lift the confidentiality restrictions on some parts of the report. My officials will contact them again today to ask them to lift their restrictions.

  The report was disclosed to the Animal Procedures Committee on 9 February for information. The Committee has not had opportunity to discuss the report, nor are Ministers expressly seeking advice on its content or the action taken since the investigation was completed.

  Immigration and Asylum (Penalties)
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the production of a code of practice in relation to the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and when implementation of those provisions will commence. [113951]

  Mrs. Roche
  Clandestine entry into the United Kingdom, particularly in road haulage vehicles, has become a major abuse of the immigration control in recent years. The number of clandestine entrants identified is currently running at about 2,000 each month and the Government are determined to take action to tackle this growing problem.

  Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for a penalty for each clandestine entrant carried to be levied on the person or persons responsible. It also provides for the detention in certain circumstances of the transporter or vehicle in which the clandestine arrived against payment of the penalty.

  The civil penalty is an important measure to enable us to deal effectively with an escalating problem. It will be implemented on 3 April 2000 in relation to clandestine entrants arriving in road vehicles.
  663W
  We have consulted widely with a number of representative bodies on a Code of Practice for vehicles to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants. The draft Code of Practice for Vehicles, which has been amended to take account of comments expressed during the consultation process, was laid before Parliament on 3 March and will come into force on 3 April.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of police local drugs units in bringing to court hard drugs dealers. [112259]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The police have a key role in the Government's anti-drugs strategy working with other enforcement agencies to stifle the availability of illegal drugs on our streets. The drug problem will not be the same in each force area, and it is an operational matter for each Chief Officer of Police to decide the most effective way to tackle drug dealing in his or her force area. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute those charged with an offence.

  Tough targets have been set under the Government's drugs strategy, significantly to reduce access to all drugs among young people, and to reduce access to the drugs which cause the greatest harm—particularly heroin and cocaine—by 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008. A target for 1999–2000 is to increase by 10 per cent. the number of offenders dealt with for supply offences in respect of Class A drugs.

  The latest available statistics show that the number of persons found guilty at court of "dealing" (possession with intent to supply unlawfully and unlawful supply) in heroin, cocaine and crack increased significantly between 1997 and 1998. Detailed information is given in the table.

  Persons found guilty at court for offences of unlawful supply/possession with intent to supply unlawfully, involving cocaine/crack, heroin (Great Britain)1

  Drug/offence

  1997

  1998

  Cocaine

  Unlawful supply

  218

  354

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  411

  522

  Crack

  Unlawful supply

  88

  137

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  73

  134

  Heroin

  Unlawful supply

  1,009

  1,378

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  1,006

  1,311

  1 As the same person may be found guilty of more than one offence, rows cannot be added together to produce totals

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins, RDS. Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom 1997 and 1998

  Afghan Hijacking
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current status of those passengers on the recently hijacked Afghan airliner who sought asylum. [113575]
  664W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 289–91W, in which I provided details of my consideration of the 44 applications for asylum.

  Racist Incidents
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the most recent statistics for reported racist incidents for each of England's police forces. [113549]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of racist incidents that were recorded by the police, by police force area, was published in December 1999 in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Racially Aggravated Offences
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of racially aggravated offences have resulted in acquittals since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force; and how many defendants this involved, broken down by ethnic group; [113367]

  (2) how many charges relating to racially aggravated offences as defined by section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been made since the Act came into force; and how many victims were alleged to be affected by the offences broken down by ethnic group. [113332]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information collected centrally indicates that 10,982 racially aggravated offences were recorded by the police in the period 1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999. No information is collected on the number of charges made for these offences, the number of victims involved or their ethnic group. 745 defendants were prosecuted in magistrates courts for racially aggravated offences in the period October 1998 to 30 June 1999 of which 261 (35 per cent.) had their prosecution terminated early and 31 (4 per cent.) had their charge dismissed. No information is available on the ethnicity of the defendants.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of racially aggravated offences have been made against police officers since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force. [113335]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not routinely collected centrally on the occupations of people accused of crime. But there were 709 complaints of racial discrimination recorded against the police in 1998–99.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially aggravated offences (1) charged by the police have been discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service(a) before and (b) after the case reached a magistrates court; and how many victims, broken down by ethnic group, were alleged to be affected by the offences charged; [113333]

  (2) have been added as further offences to other charges preferred against defendants by the Crown Prosecution Service since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into effect; and how many victims were alleged to be affected by the offences charged, broken down by ethnic group. [113334]
  665W
  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information sought is not currently available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Crown Prosecution Service has been monitoring the prosecution of racist crime since 1995. The monitoring has been substantially revised in order to capture a wider range of information as a result of the new offences of racially aggravated crimes created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The first full year of the revised scheme ends on 31 March 2000 and the Crown Prosecution Service aims to publish a report in the autumn. At that time the figures sought regarding charges for racially aggravated offences will, it is anticipated, be available. The monitoring scheme is solely offence based and does not record information about victims of racially aggravated crime either by number or ethnic group.

  Prostitutes' Cards
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to the consultation paper, New Measures to Control Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes; and if he will make a statement. [113331]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received 60 responses to the consultation paper from local authorities, police staff associations, local residents' groups, telephone operators, organisations representing sex workers and members of the public.

  We hope to make an announcement shortly on the outcome of the consultation exercise and our proposals for action.

  Dorset and Hampshire Police
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers were serving in(a) the Dorset Constabulary and (b) the Hampshire Constabulary on 31 March 1997; and how many were serving on the latest date for which figures are available. [113037]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table.

  Dorset Police and Hampshire Constabulary

  Total police officer numbers

  Year

  Dorset

  Hampshire

  31 March 1997

  1,284

  3,452

  30 September 19991

  1,276

  3,411

  1 Latest available

  EU Justice and Home Affairs
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department what are the domestic legislative implications of the individual in the Portuguese Presidency's Programme of work in the Field of Justice and Home Affairs. [113070]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None of the measures specified in the Portuguese presidency Work Programme in the field of Jusice and Home Affairs has been finalised, and most are 666W
  in the early stages of discussion. It is not possible, until an individual proposal has been finally adopted, to identify the extent of any legislative implications in the United Kingdom.

  However, in accordance with the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament, the Government deposit Explanatory Memoranda on all draft European Union proposals. Part of the Explanatory Memorandum covers the possible implications to United Kingdom Law should the proposal be adopted in its draft form.

  Balloting Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways organisations offering balloting services are regulated; and if he will make a statement. [113032]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible only for legislation affecting the conduct of elections for Westminster parliamentary, European parliamentary and local elections. He has no remit to legislate the way that balloting is conducted by outside organisations, such as trade unions and political parties. This is a matter for them to agree within their own organisation and subject to any existing legislation.

  Leicestershire Police
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers Leicestershire Police Authority area has had in post in each year between 1992–93 and the last year for which figures are available. [113168]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Leicestershire Constabulary Total police officer numbers from 1992–93 to 1999/2000

  Year as at 31 March

  Total

  1992–93

  1,805

  1993–94

  1,825

  1994–95

  1,839

  1995–96

  1,908

  1996–97

  1,949

  1997–98

  1,983

  1998–99

  1,993

  1999–20001

  1,998

  1 As at 30 September

  Asylum
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against refusal to grant political asylum were waiting to be heard on 1 February. [113084]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  There were a total of 3,825 asylum appeals outstanding before adjudicators as at 3] January 2000.

  There were in addition 2,258 asylum appeals outstanding before the Tribunal as at 31 January 2000.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons genetically-modified winter oilseed rape planted, pursuant to his decision to vary consent reference 98/R19/18 was permitted to remain in the ground after the order of the High Court. [108005]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Consent Order issued by the High Court, which was agreed and signed by all parties, did not order the destruction of the crop. The Government and the consent holder (AgrEvo UK Ltd.) indicated to the Court that the crops, which had been sown in good faith, will be treated as if a valid consent was in place in respect of them. In accordance with the terms of the Consent Order, the Government will continue to regulate the crops on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as if a new consent had been lawfully granted.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the current three year spending programme on rural transport services. [112513]

  Mr. Hill
  The current three year spending programme on rural transport includes the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, the Rural Bus Challenge Fund, the Rural Transport Partnership Scheme and the Rural Transport Development Fund.

  We are monitoring on an annual basis the impact of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. This analysis has shown that in the first year over 1,800 new or improved services were introduced in England. Monitoring of Rural Bus Challenge projects is based on an analysis of annual progress and end of project reports.

  The Rural Transport Partnership scheme and the Rural Transport Development Fund are administered by the Countryside Agency on the Department's behalf. The Countryside Agency will be evaluating these schemes during 2000–2001.

  Social Security Act 1992
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has requested under section 139A of the Social Security Act 1992; and if he will make a statement. [112652]

  Ms Armstrong
  None. I refer to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), on 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 613W.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received calling for reform of the system for removing abandoned vehicles from public highways. [112994]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has received letters from a number of local authorities, members of the public and other interested bodies about the system for the removal 668W
  of abandoned vehicles. Correspondents have expressed concern about the financial burden the removal of such vehicles places on local authorities, the period of notice authorities must give before removing vehicles, acts of vandalism associated with abandoned vehicles, and the difficulty of tracing the vehicles' owners. They have also suggested a variety of changes to the current system intended to address these concerns.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times since May 1997 his Department has overruled the advice of Sport England not to grant permission for the sale of a playing field. [112953]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Sport England are consulted on planning applications for the development of playing fields but have no role in decisions about whether or not playing fields may be sold. Their role in the referral of planning applications to my Department came into effect on 23 December 1998 under the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields)(England) Direction 1998. Since then, 18 applications have been referred to the Secretary of State. Of these, one has been called in by him for his own determination and 14 have been left to the local authority to determine. The remainder are under consideration. Of the 14 cases which were left to the local planning authority to determine, all but one involved the development of new or expanded educational or sporting facilities at existing schools or colleges. In each of these cases, the area of land which would be developed was a very minor part of the overall playing field provision.

  Travelling Showpeople
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of local planning authorities' local plans or unitary development plans include provision for sites for travelling showpeople, of the type provided for in the guidance contained in paragraph 6 of Department of the Environment Planning Circular 22/91. [113267]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for planning permission for living accommodation for travelling showpeople were received by local authorities in each year since 1985; and how many of the above applications were(a) granted by local planning authorities, (b) turned down by local planning authorities, (c) granted on appeal, (d) turned down on appeal and (e) called in by the Secretary of State, broken down into figures relating to the regions corresponding to each regional planning conference. [113266]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department does not hold statistics of planning applications or local planning authority decisions on the basis requested.

  The regional breakdown of planning appeals (under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) relating to living accommodation for travelling showpeople between 1990 and 1999 is set out in the table. In the 10 years for which records are available, our

  669W
  records show a total of 62 appeals. Of these, 28 were allowed and 34 were dismissed. There are no records available for 1985 to 1990.

  No applications relating to living accommodation for travelling showpeople were called in by the Secretary of State during the period for which records are available.

  Regional breakdown of S.78 planning appeals relating to living accommodation for travelling showpeople (1990–99)

  Year/Region

  Decision allowed

  Dismissed

  Total

  1990

  East

  1

  —

  1

  South East

  2

  1

  3

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  2

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  7

  1991

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  2

  1992

  East

  1

  —

  1

  South East

  2

  3

  5

  South West

  —

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  2

  2

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  10

  1993

  East Midlands

  —

  1

  1

  North West

  —

  1

  1

  South East

  1

  4

  5

  South West

  —

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  2

  Total

  10

  1994

  North West

  —

  1

  1

  South East

  1

  5

  6

  Total

  7

  1995

  East

  1

  —

  1

  North West

  —

  1

  1

  South East

  2

  2

  4

  South West

  —

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  8

  1996

  North West

  1

  —

  1

  South East

  1

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  4

  1997

  South East

  2

  1

  3

  South West

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  4

  1998

  NorthWest

  1

  1

  2

  South East

  2

  1

  3

  South West

  —

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  —

  1

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  8

  1999

  South East

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  2

  Grand Total

  28

  34

  62

  Heathland Habitats (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department offers about resolving conflicts arising from the EU requirement to restore heathland habitats in Dorset and to retain trees as a habitat for woodland birds and as an amenity and landscape feature. [113036]

  Mr. Mullin
  None. However, English Nature, the Government's scientific advisers, and the Forestry Commission are working closely together to ensure delivery of obligations under the Habitats Directive and of the Lowland Heathland Habitat Action Plan. In September 1999, English Nature issued guidance to its local teams on how to resolve such issues. The Forestry Commission has similarly drawn up preliminary guidance as to how its staff should consider the potential conflicts when considering felling licences.

  Asbestos Removal Companies
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many licensed asbestos removal companies are operating in the UK in the last year for which figures are available; and how many had their licence revoked. [113325]

  Mr. Meacher
  At 1 March 2000, there were 751 asbestos licence holders on the database maintained by HSE. Not all licensees are actively engaged in asbestos removal or associated work on a regular basis.

  In the period 1 April 1999 to 1 March 2000, some 20 licensees have been warned that HSE has considered revocation of their licence and will take that step unless there is an improvement in performance. No licences were revoked.

  Railtrack Land (Allotments)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the status of land owned by Railtrack and Rail Property Ltd. in use as allotments. [113076]

  Mr. Hill
  Land in use as allotments and owned by Railtrack, a private company, and Rail Property Ltd. has no special status. Statutory protection of allotment land does not apply to privately owned land or land owned by a public body when that body—such as Rail Property Ltd.—is not a local authority.

  Rail Property Ltd.
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the legal relationship between his Department and Rail Property Ltd. [113075]

  Mr. Hill
  Rail Property Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board (BRB) which is one of the nationalised industries sponsored by the Department. The British Railways Board now operates as part of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA). Subject to the passage of the Transport Bill currently before Parliament the SRA, when formally established, will incorporate the functions of the BRB.

  Air Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent steps he has taken to ensure the aircraft flying over London into Heathrow have sufficient fuel on board. [113039]

  Mr. Mullin
  Responsibility for the safety regulation of airlines, including compliance with minimum fuel requirements, lies with the country in which the airline is based. The UK Civil Aviation Authority ensures that UK airlines have effective minimum fuel policies for all flights and checks fuel records when auditing airlines. Regulatory authorities for foreign airlines must ensure that their airlines meet at least the international standards for minimum fuel levels.

  We have procedures in place to check that foreign operated aircraft flying to the UK are being maintained and operated in compliance with international standards. These include targeted inspections by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of aircraft from countries where safety oversight has been questioned. Last summer, following an allegation that one airline had operated into Heathrow airport with low fuel levels on a number of occasions, we targeted a number of inspections on long haul operators from the Far East. We asked the particular operator concerned to provide us with weekly reports of fuel levels of their aircraft on arrival at Heathrow and this has continued as a condition of their operating permit; the reports have been satisfactory. We will investigate fully any reports of problems with other operators.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what requirements exist for non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department to carry out an environmental impact statement for their respective activities. [113306]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Regulations require environmental impact assessment for certain public and private projects that are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. These apply to activities proposed by non-departmental public bodies responsible to my Department in the same way as those proposed by any other body.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to encourage the expansion of combined heat and power generation capacity. [113057]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's action to exempt Good Quality Combined Heat and Power from the Climate Change Levy is the strongest evidence of this Government's commitment to the wider use of CHP. It is also intended to be one of the energy technologies eligible for the proposed Enhanced Capital Allowances scheme under the Climate Change Levy package. The announcement on 6 March that electricity generating plant and machinery in all Good Quality CHP schemes will be de-rated from 1 April 2001, further strengthens Government support for CHP.
  672W
  We are implementing a CHP Quality Assurance programme to enhance the quality of CHP and determine eligibility to a range of benefits, and will shortly consult on a new strategy to achieve our target of at least 10,000 MWe of CHP by 2010.

  We continue to work closely with industry to ensure the fullest support for CHP growth. On 17 May I will be launching the CHP Club, an integrated service under the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, to help new and potential CHP users exploit the positive environment which this Government have put in place.

  Rat Infestations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions further to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 130W, on rats, if he will commission a more detailed assessment of the conditions of drains and sewers near dwellings and their relationship to rat infestations as part of the 2001 English House Condition Survey. [113062]

  Mr. Mullin
  The 1996 English House Condition Survey (EHCS) included an assessment of observable faults to the drainage system around the dwelling, which surveyors can reasonably be asked to collect as part of a standard house condition survey. Development work is now under way for the 2001 survey and it is highly likely that this will be repeated. However, the EHCS is not an appropriate vehicle for carrying out more detailed investigative work on the overall condition of drains and sewers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, further to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 130W, on rats, if cracked or defective drain covers would render a dwelling unfit. [113061]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under the current fitness standard a dwelling can be deemed unfit if it does not have an effective system for the draining of foul, waste and surface water. This tends to be based on an overall assessment of a number of features connected with the drainage system. In relation to the collection and analysis of the English House Condition Survey data, dwellings are not deemed unfit solely because of cracked or defective drain covers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, further to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 130W, on rats, if dwellings that are unfit as the result of lack of effective drainage are more likely to have rat infestations than those that are unfit on other counts; and if he will make a statement. [113060]

  Mr. Mullin
  The English House Condition Survey questions related to rodent infestations are analysed in the recent MAFF report "Rodent Infestations in domestic properties in England". Page 11 of the report emphasises that properties with defective drainage systems also tend to be defective in many other aspects. It would not be appropriate to analyse the data to make a distinction between those that are unfit for drainage reasons and those that are unfit for other reasons. This is because the number of dwellings in the sample that are classed as unfit because of problems with drainage is very small, less than 1 per cent. of the total sample.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates in the last year officials and Ministers of his Department have met representatives of the(a) British Road Federation, (b) Road Haulage Association, (c) Freight Transport Association, (d) RAC, (e) AA, (f) Cyclists Touring Club, (g) Pedestrians Association and (h) Transport 2000. [113051]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers and officials have formal and informal meetings with representatives of these organisations as necessary; a detailed record could be kept only at disproportionate cost.

  Connex
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Connex train services have(a) run on time, (b) been delayed and (c) been cancelled in the last month. [113173]

  Mr. Hill
  The shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) does not monitor the train operating companies' performance in these terms. The sSRA publishes quarterly statistics on punctuality and reliability, the next of which will be published shortly and placed in the Library of the House.

  Trafalgar Square (Pedestrianisation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department has taken to identify potential sources of funding for proposals to partially pedestrianise Trafalgar Square. [113444]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government fully support the proposal to close the north side of Trafalgar Square to traffic which is included in phase 1 of the World Squares for All Masterplan. We are making up to £2 million available to Westminster City Council for the design of phase 1 of the Masterplan.

  Implementation of phase 1 could begin in 2001 and further funding would be a matter for the Mayor of London. Contributions to the cost of implementation could also be sought from the Heritage Lottery Fund and private sector sponsorship.

  Rural Poverty
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's consultation document concerning additional funds to deal with rural poverty. [113476]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: As part of the consultation for the forthcoming Rural White Paper, DETR published its discussion document "Rural England" in February 1999. This posed a series of questions on a wide range of rural issues. A summary of the themes arising from this consultation has been published on the DETR internet website.

  Rural poverty is one of the issues being addressed in preparing for the Rural White Paper which we expect to publish later this year.
  674W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's research into the extent of rural poverty; and what definitions of poverty he has used. [113465]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Poverty is a complex, multi-dimensional issue, affecting many aspects of people's lives—income, health, housing, the quality of the environment, opportunities to work and learn, and access to services. There is no single reliable measure.

  The Countryside Agency, the Government's statutory adviser on social and economic development in rural areas, has been conducting research into indicators of rural disadvantage. The findings of this research are expected to be published in due course. Current information on rural disadvantage is contained in the Agency's "State of the Countryside", a copy of which is in the Library. It is also among the topics covered in The Cabinet Office's "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity" report, which provides information on the economic, social and environmental conditions in the countryside.

  Farm Buildings
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to facilitate the conversion of disused farm buildings for residential and other purposes; and if he will make a statement. [113145]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 7: Countryside, already positively encourages the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings. I shall be considering whether any revised guidance maybe appropriate in the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Rural Economies".

  China Clay Quarrying
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the extension of china clay quarrying in Dartmoor is an exceptional circumstance in the sense intended by his own guidance; and what examination of proposals for such quarrying he has conducted. [113573]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Whether a planning application for an extension of china clay quarrying in Dartmoor comprises an 'exceptional circumstance', as explained in paragraph 4.5 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7—The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development, would depend upon the scale, nature and individual circumstances of that proposal.

  So far as I am aware, no applications have recently been submitted for new or extended china clay quarrying. If they had, the Dartmoor National Park Authority would be responsible for determining them. The Secretary of State would only examine such an application if he called it in for his own determination or if it came before him on appeal.

  I am, however, aware of several applications that have been submitted to both the National Park Authority and to Devon County Council under the old minerals planning permission (OMP) review provisions of the Environment Act 1995. These are for the determination of modern operating and restoration conditions for existing china

  675W
  clay planning permissions within and adjoining the Dartmoor National Park, and not extensions of existing quarrying operations. The local authorities for areas within which these are located are responsible for determining them. As these applications may come before the Secretary of State on appeal, he is unable to comment on their merits.

  A35
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what AADT figures were recorded for the Chideock section of the A35 in 1998 and 1999; and what percentage increases are projected for the years 2000 to 2010. [113576]

  Mr. Hill
  The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) figures in 1998 and 1999 were 13,186 and 13,618 respectively.

  DETR forecasts indicate that by 2010, a central traffic growth estimate (which represents an average of low and high estimates) would add a further 20 per cent. to traffic levels.

  In the case of the A35 at Chideock this would mean estimated AADT figure in the region of 16,500 vehicles per day by the year 2010.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will monitor kerbside nitrogen dioxide in Chideock on the A35. [113574]

  Mr. Hill
  Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities to review and assess the current and likely future air quality in their areas. Local authorities are required to consider whether one or more of the national air quality objectives, as prescribed in regulations, are unlikely to be met by the required date. Objectives have been set for a number of air pollutants including nitrogen dioxide. The Secretary of State has issued guidance on how to undertake such reviews and assessments, including on where and when monitoring of air pollutants is needed. I understand that West Dorset district council will consider monitoring the kerbside nitrogen dioxide in Chideock on the A35, in addition to their existing monitoring sites throughout the area.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he plans to give to regional assemblies. [113599]

  Ms Armstrong
  The eight regional assemblies and chambers already established are voluntary bodies. We have no plans to give them statutory powers but we have provided them with important roles specifically in relation to Regional Development Agencies, regional planning guidance, and regional sustainable development frameworks.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities in England which (i) have completed an LSVT of housing stock and (ii) are currently undertaking an LSVT. [113598]
  676W
  Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 Febtruary 2000,Official Report, columns 923–25W. Report, columns 923-25W.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the average turn around times between tenants of local authority housing stock for each authority in England. [113597]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities in England provide estimates of the average time taken to relet their housing stock on their annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) Operational Information returns. Information reported for lettings during 1998–99 is given in the table. There are variations in the way local authorities maintain lettings records and compile these estimates, and comparisons between authorities should be treated with caution.

  Average time to relet local authority housing stock1, 1998–99

  Days

  North East

  Alnwick

  35

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  9

  Blyth Valley

  25

  Castle Morpeth

  28

  Chester-le-Street

  55

  Darlington

  31

  Derwentside

  16

  Durham

  63

  Easington

  66

  Gateshead

  32

  Hartlepool

  31

  Middlesbrough

  68

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  34

  North Tyneside

  33

  Redcar and Cleveland

  31

  Sedgefield

  28

  South Tyneside

  19

  Stockton-on-Tees

  40

  Sunderland

  30

  Teesdale

  30

  Tynedale

  24

  Wansbeck

  33

  Wear Valley

  58

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Barnsley

  35

  Bradford

  52

  Calderdale

  50

  Craven

  18

  Doncaster

  68

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  53

  Hambleton2

  0

  Harrogate

  13

  Kingston upon Hull

  43

  Kirklees

  31

  Leeds

  42

  North East Lincolnshire

  63

  North Lincolnshire

  77

  Richmondshire

  35

  Rotherham

  73

  Ryedale2

  0

  Scarborough

  23

  Selby

  14

  Sheffield

  42

  Wakefield

  11

  York

  25

  East Midlands

  Amber Valley

  22

  Ashfield

  37

  Bassetlaw

  82

  677W

  Average time to relet local authority housing stock1, 1998–99

  Days

  Blaby

  26

  Bolsover

  28

  Boston

  86

  Broxtowe

  32

  Charnwood

  48

  Chesterfield

  18

  Corby

  50

  Daventry

  54

  Derby

  33

  Derbyshire Dales

  16

  East Lindsey2

  0

  East Northamptonshire

  53

  Erewash

  41

  Gedling

  31

  Harborough

  55

  High Peak

  29

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  35

  Kettering

  34

  Leicester

  40

  Lincoln

  37

  Mansfield

  50

  Melton

  52

  Newark and Sherwood

  32

  North East Derbyshire

  39

  North Kesteven

  53

  North West Leicestershire

  52

  Northampton

  42

  Nottingham City

  25

  Oadby and Wigston

  12

  Rushcliffe

  26

  Rutland

  24

  South Derbyshire

  25

  South Holland

  24

  South Kesteven

  33

  South Northamptonshire

  31

  Wellingborough

  57

  West Lindsey

  49

  East of England

  Babergh

  25

  Basildon

  35

  Bedford2

  20

  Braintree

  14

  Breckland2

  0

  Brentwood

  35

  Broadland2

  0

  Broxbourne

  26

  Cambridge

  52

  Castle Point

  44

  Chelmsford

  33

  Colchester

  15

  Dacorum

  51

  East Cambridgeshire2

  0

  East Hertfordshire

  25

  Epping Forest

  51

  Fenland

  30

  Forest Heath

  32

  Great Yarmouth

  27

  Harlow

  49

  Hertsmere2

  0

  Huntingdonshire

  25

  Ipswich

  22

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  23

  Luton

  38

  Maldon2

  0

  Mid Bedfordshire

  3—

  Mid Suffolk

  34

  North Hertfordshire

  45

  North Norfolk

  23

  Norwich

  37

  Peterborough

  53

  Rochford

  31

  South Bedfordshire

  29

  678W

  Average time to relet local authority housing stock1, 1998–99

  Days

  South Cambridgeshire

  35

  South Norfolk

  19

  Southend-on-Sea

  67

  St. Albans

  27

  St. Edmundsbury

  30

  Stevenage

  33

  Suffolk Coastal2

  43

  Tendring

  30

  Three Rivers

  14

  Thurrock

  63

  Uttlesford

  22

  Watford

  49

  Waveney

  41

  Welwyn Hatfield

  50

  Barking and Dagenham

  51

  Barnet

  54

  Bexley2

  0

  Brent

  39

  Bromley2

  0

  Camden

  52

  City of London

  18

  Croydon

  33

  Ealing

  45

  Enfield

  77

  Greenwich

  55

  Hackney

  78

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  43

  Haringey

  64

  Harrow

  46

  Havering

  32

  Hillingdon

  30

  Hounslow

  46

  Islington

  162

  Kensington and Chelsea

  37

  Kingston upon Thames

  64

  Lambeth

  38

  Lewisham

  50

  Merton

  35

  Newham

  53

  Redbride

  57

  Richmond upon Thames

  110

  Southwark

  54

  Sutton

  56

  Tower Hamlets

  35

  Waltham Forest

  70

  Wandsworth

  46

  Westminster

  28

  South East

  Adur

  27

  Arun

  50

  Ashford

  25

  Aylesbury Vale

  52

  Basingstoke and Deane2

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  34

  Brighton and Hove

  53

  Canterbury

  27

  Cherwell

  26

  Chichester

  20

  Chiltern2

  0

  Crawley

  46

  Dartford

  28

  Dover

  54

  East Hampshire2

  0

  Eastbourne

  21

  Eastleigh2

  0

  Elmbridge

  45

  Epsom and Ewell2

  7

  Fareham

  20

  Gosport

  30

  Gravesham

  50

  Guildford

  51

  679W

  Average time to relet local authority housing stock1, 1998–99

  Days

  Hart2

  0

  Hastings2

  0

  Havant2

  0

  Horsham

  38

  Isle of Wight2

  21

  Lewes

  31

  Maidstone

  38

  Mid Sussex2

  0

  Milton Keynes

  40

  Mole Valley

  58

  New Forest

  22

  Oxford

  36

  Portsmouth

  4

  Reading

  28

  Reigate and Banstead

  58

  Rother2

  0

  Runnymede

  38

  Rushmoor2

  0

  Sevenoaks2

  0

  Shepway

  22

  Slough

  29

  South Bucks2

  0

  South Oxfordshire2

  0

  Southampton

  46

  Spelthorne2

  0

  Surrey Heath2

  0

  Swale2

  0

  Tandridge

  40

  Test Valley

  15

  Thanet

  30

  The Medway Towns

  42

  Tonbridge and Malling2

  0

  Tunbridge Wells2

  14

  Vale of White Horse2

  46

  Waverley

  33

  Wealden

  30

  West Berkshire2

  8

  West Oxfordshire

  35

  Winchester

  15

  Windsor and Maidenhead2

  2

  Woking

  28

  Wokingham

  25

  Worthing2

  18

  Wycombe

  20

  South West

  Bath and North East Somerset2

  0

  Bournemouth

  46

  Bristol

  22

  Caradon

  27

  Carrick

  19

  Cheltenham

  52

  Christchurch2

  0

  Cotswold2

  0

  East Devon

  33

  East Dorset2

  0

  Exeter

  22

  Forest of Dean

  30

  Gloucester

  20

  Isles of Scilly

  7

  Kennet2

  0

  Kerrier2

  0

  Mendip

  14

  Mid Devon

  27

  North Cornwall

  18

  North Devon

  17

  North Dorset2

  0

  North Somerset

  27

  North Wiltshire2

  0

  Penwith2

  0

  Plymouth

  4

  Poole

  38

  Purbeck

  25

  680W

  Average time to relat local authority housing stock1, 1998–99

  Days

  Restormel

  39

  Salisbury

  19

  Sedgemoor

  12

  South Gloucestershire

  33

  South Hams2

  0

  South Somerset2

  3

  Stroud

  26

  Swindon

  15

  Taunton Deane

  14

  Teignbridge

  29

  Tewkesbury2

  0

  Torbay

  26

  Torridge

  29

  West Devon2

  0

  West Dorset2

  0

  West Somerset2

  0

  West Wiltshire

  3—

  Weymouth and Portland

  17

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  47

  Bridgnorth

  40

  Bromsgrove

  34

  Cannock Chase

  28

  Coventry

  35

  Dudley

  115

  East Staffordshire

  46

  Herefordshire

  13

  Lichfield2

  0

  Malvern Hills2

  0

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  47

  North Shropshire

  40

  North Warwickshire

  35

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  71

  Oswestry

  45

  Redditch

  20

  Rugby

  10

  Sandwell

  69

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  26

  Solihull

  35

  South Shropshire2

  0

  South Staffordshire2

  0

  Stafford

  39

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  41

  Stoke-on-Trent

  46

  Stratford-upon-Avon2

  0

  Tamworth

  25

  Telford and Wrekin2

  35

  Walsall

  42

  Warwick

  30

  Wolverhampton

  49

  Worcester

  25

  Wychavon2

  0

  Wyre Forest

  28

  North West

  Allerdale2

  44

  Barrow-in-Furness

  33

  Blackburn with Darwen

  56

  Blackpool

  37

  Bolton

  44

  Burnley

  83

  Bury

  58

  Carlisle

  74

  Chester

  35

  Chorley

  45

  Congleton2

  0

  Copeland

  16

  Crewe and Nantwich

  41

  Eden2

  0

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  34

  Fylde

  30

  Halton

  83

  681W

  Average time to relet local authority housing stock1, 1998–99

  Days

  Hyndburn

  37

  Lancaster

  26

  Macclesfield

  55

  Manchester

  24

  Oldham

  44

  Pendle

  35

  Preston

  36

  Ribble Valley

  21

  Rochdale

  40

  Rossendale

  50

  Salford

  54

  South Lakeland

  23

  South Ribble2

  0

  Stockport

  37

  Tameside

  30

  Trafford

  40

  Vale Royal

  35

  Warrington

  37

  West Lancashire

  35

  Wigan

  28

  Wyre2

  0

  Knowsley

  25

  Liverpool

  68

  Sefton

  44

  St. Helens

  38

  Wirral

  44

  1 Excludes dwellings let after major works, mutual exchanges and tenancy successions.

  2 Denotes authorities which had transferred all or most of their housing stock, under Large Scale Voluntar Transfer arrangement, by 31 March 1999

  3 Not available

  Source:

  DETR Housing Investment Programme returns 1999

  A27
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funds will be available for the study of traffic congestion on the A27 in the Worthing area due later this year; and when the study will be carried out. [113596]

  Mr. Hill
  The A27 Worthing-Lancing Integrated Transport Study is to be funded as part of the Department's programme of Multi Modal Studies. Tenders will be issued shortly to invite consultants to the bid for the commission to undertake the Study.

  Climate Change Programme
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government's draft climate change programme. [113826]

  Mr. Prescott
  I will publish a draft climate change programme for the UK on Thursday 9 March. This will set out how we plan to deliver the UK's emission reduction target from Kyoto and move towards its domestic goal. I will also be publishing a consultation paper on a new Energy Efficiency Standard of Performance scheme which would start in 2002.

  Copies of the report and the consultation paper will be available from the Vote Office and be placed in the Libraries of the House at 11.00 am tomorrow morning.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the housing benefit budget of the judgment in the Court of Appeal in Rv. Secretary of State ex parte Spath Holme Ltd. [113339]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Court of Appeal judgment means that we can no longer factor in the capping arrangements in our forecast of rent allowance expenditure which relates to tenancies with a registered rent in England and Wales. As a result, our forecast will need to be increased by £8 million and £15 million for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the Government's policy on debt reduction on her target of halving world poverty by 2015. [113495]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government have continually emphasised that the purpose of debt relief is to enable countries to make greater progress on reducing poverty and achieving the international development targets. Our submission to the review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative set out ways in which the impact of debt relief on poverty reduction could be increased, and I welcome the improvements to the HIPC framework that have been agreed internationally and are now being implemented. The revised HIPC initiative both provides deeper and faster debt relief to qualifying countries, and ensures that a poverty reduction strategy is put in place so that all development resources, including those freed up by HIPC debt relief, can be invested effectively in anti-poverty programmes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Balloting Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that organisations offering balloting services to(a) trade unions and (b) political parties which involve contested elections count votes in the presence of the candidates should they wish this. [113031]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Trade union election ballots are regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which requires elections to be held for appointments to certain positions in trade unions and governs the conduct of those elections. In particular, the Act requires that votes should be fairly and accurately counted, an independent scrutineer should be appointed to monitor and report on the conduct of the election, and voting papers should be stored, distributed and counted by the scrutineer or another independent person. A union member or candidate who

  683W
  believes that there has been a breach of the Act's requirements can apply for a remedy to the Certification Officer or the court.

  The procedure for the selection of candidates by political parties is a matter for the parties themselves.

  Utilities Bill
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to remove the provisions relating to(a) telecommunications and (b) water from the Utilities Bill; and if he will make a statement. [113324]

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans for the regulation of telecoms and water. [113280]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: I announced during Oral Questions on 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 555, that the provisions relating to telecommunications and water will be removed from the Utilities Bill.

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 50W, on international price comparisons, for what reason his Departmental Press Notice of 11 February stated that the survey report was to be published on 11 February. [113129]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The Department Press Notice did not say that the survey report was to be published on 11 February.

  Petrol (Fair Competition)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Director General of Fair Trading began the present review of the petrol undertakings given by oil companies in 1966; when the review will be completed; and if he will publish the results of the review. [113532]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Director General of Fair Trading began the present review of the 1966 petrol undertakings in July 1998. He expects to complete the review this month and will advise me on whether the undertakings should be retained, removed or amended. I will announce my decision in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of changes in the number of petrol supplier and petrol retailers in the downstream market from 1997 to date on competition. [113535]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading has responsibility for monitoring markets. He completed a major review of the petrol market in 1998. He concluded that competition in the petrol retailing market was strong and working to the benefit of consumers.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that voluntary agreements between petrol suppliers and petrol retailers not covered 684W
  by the undertakings given by oil companies in 1966 are subject to equivalent scrutiny by the Office of Fair Trading to ensure fair competition. [113533]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Director General of Fair Trading has powers to investigate such agreements if they appear to raise competition concerns.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has the responsibility for ensuring adherence to the petrol undertakings given by oil companies in 1966. [113534]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and compliance with orders and undertakings given under the competition legislation. He has in recent years considered a number of complaints about breaches of the 1966 petrol undertakings but has not so far found that breaches of the undertakings have occurred.

  Latin American Trade Contracts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those trade contracts with Latin American countries which have been cancelled in the last 16 months. [113595]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am unable to provide such a list. Companies do not generally advise my Department of contractual disputes which would be regarded as a commercial matter for them.

  Telephone Call Costs
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the OFT has made of the comparative cost of telephone calls from the UK to(a) India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and (b) the USA, Australia and New Zealand; and if he will make a statement. [113143]

  Ms Hewitt
  OFTEL has the main responsibility for telecoms competition issues. The market for international calls from the UK is competitive with more than 70 operators providing services. Prices for international calls have risen by only 7 per cent. in the last five years and BT's share of the market for international calls has fallen to below 37 per cent. for business users and below 70 per cent. for residential users.

  There is still nevertheless a marked discrepancy in the cost of calling different countries.

  BT's headline retail prices for the routes in question together with the accounting rates are:

  £

  Route

  Retail price per minute1

  Accounting rate

  (a)

  India

  1.20

  0.91

  Pakistan

  1.35

  0.81

  Bangladesh

  1.35

  1.13

  (b)

  USA

  0.24

  0.13

  Australia

  0.49

  0.25

  New Zealand

  0.49

  0.14

  1 Inclusive of VAT

  685W
  The differences in the cost of calls between the two groups of country above arise because of the different stages of liberalisation in these countries and the different charges for terminating incoming international traffic (known as accounting rates). The telecoms markets of group (b) countries are completely liberalised compared to the closed markets of the group (a) countries which have big net inflows of traffic from the UK coupled with high accounting rates. Furthermore, there are much higher call volumes between group (b) countries and the UK compared to group (a).

  The Government and OFTEL continue to participate in international meetings, particularly through the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to put pressure on countries with high accounting rates to reduce them.

WALES

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what talks he has had with(a) other departments and (b) the First Secretary concerning teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement. [108956]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis to discuss various issues including the importance of high standards of teaching in Wales. I have been involved in discussion with the National Assembly and the Department for Education and Employment on the implementation of the recommendations of the School Teachers Review Body in Wales.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112666]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No new public bodies have been established by either the Welsh Office between May 1997 and 30 June 1999, or the Wales Office from 1 July 1999 to date.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of candidates for appointment to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were not appointed due to their political affiliations. [113308]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Political affiliation is not taken into account when making appointments to non-departmental public bodies.

PRIME MINISTER

  "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity"
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to update the report entitled "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity". [112253]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been two reports published under the general heading "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity". The first, "Variation in Economic & Social 686W
  Conditions Across the UK", was completed in December 1999; the second, "Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in the Countryside", was completed in February 2000. Both reports were prepared by the Cabinet Office and reflected relevant conditions and statistics at their time of publication. The Government will keep their findings in mind in developing and delivering future policies, but have no immediate plans to produce updates.

  Leaks
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received regarding leak inquiries in Government departments. [112265]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Operation Horseshoe
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 851W, on Operation Horseshoe, if he will place a copy of the statement made by the German Defence Minister on 9 April 1999 in the Library. [113365]

  The Prime Minister
  I have arranged to have placed in the Library a copy of the material concerning Operation Horseshoe made public by the German Defence Minister on 9 April, along with an English language translation.

CABINET OFFICE

  IT (Public Services)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent assessment she has made of how the use of information technology can improve the delivery of public services. [112263]

  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action is being taken to develop a strategic approach to the use of IT in delivering public services. [112272]

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action is being taken to develop a co-ordinated approach to the use of IT in delivering public services. [112280]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to develop a strategic approach to the use of IT in delivering public services. [112281]

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what studies her Office is carrying out into the scope for improving the use of information technology in the delivery of Government services. [112282]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to increase communications between Ministers and members of the public by means of the Internet. [112277]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We set out proposals for improving public service delivery by information technology in our draft Corporate IT Strategy, of which I announced the publication in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 353W.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the latest developments in implementing the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [112264]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are making good progress towards the tough targets set out in their strategy document, "Tackling Drugs to build a better Britain".

  On 3 February, my right hon. Friend announced the joint funding of over £500,000 with the Department of Health and the Home Office to recruit up to 300 extra specialist treatment workers. This will help to ensure we have enough properly skilled staff to provide a high quality treatment service to those who need it.

  We are also providing a further £7.5 million of support this year and in 2000–01 to assist all schools to deliver effective drug education.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what role the drug action teams are playing in the delivery of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [112271]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Drug Action Teams have a crucial role in the delivery of the National Drugs Strategy. They consist of agencies for Probation, Health, Education, Police authorities and local authorities. They are the main mechanism for delivery on the ground. All Drug Action Teams are required to plan and deliver an effective programme of anti-drug activities in their area, which is in line with the National Strategy.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met the Anti-drugs Co-ordinator to discuss future policy on the control of illegal substances entering the country. [112269]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I met with the Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator at the Ministerial Steering Group for Drugs meeting on 23 February.

  I hold regular meetings with the Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss all aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the Drug Awareness Resistance Education Programme; and if she will make a statement. [112273]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I am aware of the contribution made by the Drug Awareness Resistance Education Programme to drug education schemes in a number of areas. I know also that it has enjoyed strong support from a number of hon. Members, particularly in the Nottinghamshire area.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the implementation of policies designed to tackle social exclusion. [112266]
  688W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the implementation of policies designed to tackle social exclusion. [112275]

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to tackle social exclusion. [112278]

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the implementation of policies designed to tackle social exclusion. [112279]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I can confirm that good progress is being made towards achieving the Government's targets on the four reports from the Social Exclusion Unit that have been published. These of course are on School Truancy and Exclusion, Rough Sleeping, Teenage Pregnancy and Bridging the Gap, and 16 to 18-year-olds not in Education, Training or Employment.

  A draft report for consultation, on the National strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, is due to be launched in early April.

  Better Government (Older People)
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to develop the Better Government for Older People projects. [112267]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The pilot phase of the Better Government for Older People programme comes to an end this month. We hope that, given the 28 pilots' great success in delivering better public services to older people, the local authorities leading them continue to support them and develop their work. The Government are looking forward to receiving the programme's final report in June and to putting its lessons into practice to deliver a marked and sustainable improvement in older people's experience of public services.

  Regulation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to reduce the number of regulations issued by Government Departments. [112268]

  Mr. Stringer
  Each Government Department now has a Regulatory Reform Minister. These Ministers are directly responsible for delivering our regulatory strategy in their Department including:getting rid of unnecessary regulations; and
  consulting with business on any essential new proposals.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will chair a Regulatory Accountability Panel which will be examining the regulatory performance and programmes of each Department. Together with the requirement to produce regulatory impact assessments, these arrangements will ensure that this Government regulates only where necessary and in the least burdensome way.

  "Modernising Government"
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent discussions she has had with(a) trade union representatives and (b) others on the "Modernising Government" programme. [112270]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have regular meetings with the trade unions at which developments in modernising government are discussed among other topics.

  I have many other meetings and it would be unusual for modernisation not to feature positively in some way.

  Online Government
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the state of preparedness of the United Kingdom for online Government. [112276]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to him on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 544W.

  Target

  Subject

  Status

  Key Target 1

  Establish cost of disposals (including internal costs and consultancy fees, but not Works in Aid) as a percentage of disposal receipts and set targets for improvement

  Achieved

  Key Target 2

  Achieve gross disposal receipts of £150m

  Achieved

  Key Target 3

  Complete transfer of title to new owner of 90% of disposals within 3 years of property being passed to DEO for disposal.

  Not Achieved

  Key Target 4

  Complete initial assessment against Business Excellence Model.

  Achieved

  Key Target 5

  Complete Internal Investors in People (IIP) and external customer survey and submit reports to the Owner's Advisory Board, together with proposed targets for improvement:

  a. Internal IIP process

  Achieved

  b. External customer survey

  Achieved

  Key Target 6

  Appointments for external Project Managers for capital works projects:

  a. 99% achievement within 1 month for appointments made through Term Commissions or Partnering arrangements.

  Achieved

  b. 90% achievement within 5 months for all appointments.

  Achieved

  It was not possible to achieve KT3 due to the legacy of sites in the disposal programme. The actual figure achieved for sites sold during 1998/1999, was 77 per cent.
  The 1998/1999 Annual Report & Accounts for Defence Estates was published on 2 November 1999, and a copy placed in the library of the House of Commons on 2 November 1999.
  The Agency's Key Targets for 1998/1999 reflected an organisation in transition. This was a period during which the Agency necessarily committed itself to essential internal restructuring to accommodate the recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). It was also necessary for the Agency to improve its focus on the needs of its customers and other stakeholders. The 1999/2000 Key Targets reflected this. Specifically, they addressed the need to establish a corporate management strategy for the estate, the development of a new construction procurement model and to improve the process for the disposal of surplus buildings and land.

  The published Key Targets for 1999/2000 are:

  Key Target 1:
  To demonstrate an improvement of 10% (over the figure for 1998/1999) in the level of customer satisfaction with the services provided by the Agency as measured by the 1999/2000 customer survey.

  Key Target 2:
  To achieve net disposal receipts of £235M.

  Key Target 3:
  To let three pilot Prime Contracts by 31 March 2000.

DEFENCE

  Defence Estates Organisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Estates organisation for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111725]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Estates agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Ian Andrews to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the targets set for the Defence Estate Organisation.
  Detailed below are the Defence Estates (formerly the Defence Estate Organisation) published Key Targets for 1998/1999:

  Key Target 4:
  To publish a strategy for the management of the Defence Estate by 31 December 1999.
  I hope this is helpful.

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111752]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from C. M. Davison to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you ask for details of those targets for the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment for 1998–99 which were, and were not, achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each

  691W
  case, and detailing the action taken by the Agency to improve target achievement in 1999–2000. These matters fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Agency Key Targets and achievement against each one were published in the Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99 (Publication HC 677 Page 12 refers). Eight of the nine Targets were achieved. The Target not achieved—the attainment of Investors in People accreditation by 31 December 1998—was revised during the

  Achievement against key ministerial targets

  Targets, outturns and achievements

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Targets for 1999–2000

  Efficiency

  To reduce the cost per task manhour, at full cost, compared with the FY 1996–97 figure

  Target

  Baseline set at £62.50

  Less than 95%

  Less than 93%

  Less than 85%2

  Outturn

  —1

  90.6%

  83.65%

  —

  Reduce the core as far as possible and continue to refine it against the operational need

  Target

  Review and reduce to minimum

  Review and reduce to minimum

  Review and reduce to minimum

  3—

  Outturn

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Achieved

  —

  Throughput

  Maintain core skills needed to support likely operations

  Target

  Maintain skills

  Maintain skills

  Maintain skills

  3—

  Outturn

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Achieved

  —

  Deliver operational tasks on time

  Target

  100%

  100%

  100%

  100%

  Outturn

  100%

  100%

  100%

  —

  Deliver non-operational tasks on time

  Target

  More than 80%

  More than 85%

  More than 90%

  More than 92%

  Outturn

  87.3%

  87.75%

  93.5%

  —

  Quality

  To reduce the number of quality failures in completed tasks

  Target

  Less than 5%

  Less than 5%

  Less than 4%

  Less than 1.5%

  Outturn

  1%

  3%

  1.4%

  —

  Financial Performance

  Develop an improved costing system which will interface effectively with the MOD's overall approach to Resource Accounting and Budgeting

  Target

  No Target

  No Target

  Develop costing system

  3—

  Outturn

  4—

  4—

  Achieved

  3—

  Miscellaneous

  Complete an Action Plan to resolve the Year 2000 IT problem by 30 September 1998

  Target

  No Target

  No Target

  Complete Plan

  5—

  Outturn

  4—

  4—

  Achieved

  —

  Achieve Investors in People Accreditation by 31 December 1998

  Target

  No Target

  No Target

  Achieve by 31 December 1998

  5—

  Outturn

  4—

  4—

  Not achieved6

  —

  1 Previous figures based on cash cost

  2 In real terms

  3 Not a Key Target for this year following revised guidance

  4 Not applicable

  5 Not a Key Target for this year

  6 The target was revised during the year following a mock assessment. The assessment took place in March 1999. We have been informed that a positive recommendation will be made to the assessment panel on 23 July 1999.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111726]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.692W
  year following a mock assessment in September 1998 which highlighted the need for further work on the evaluation of training and development taking place within the organisation. The formal assessment was carried out in March 1999, and the Agency was awarded its accreditation in July 1999, well ahead of the overall MoD deadline.
  In the light of revised guidance from the MoD Framework Team, only 4 Key Targets were published for the Agency in 1999–2000, and the evidence to date indicates that each Target will be achieved.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's (DERA) targets for 1998/99.
  A list of the key targets for 1998/99 and details of which ones were and were not achieved, together with an explanation of the factors affecting the outcome in each case, is given in Annual Report for 1998/99, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  You also asked for details of the action taken by the Agency to improve target achievements performance in 1999/00. The targets for 1999/00 were published in Hansard on 27 July 1999. Again, a copy is attached for ease of reference. As you will see, with the exception of target 7, "To establish at least six Defence Diversification Offices across the UK", they are essentially the same

  693W
  as those for the previous year. The many trading problems caused by continuing declines in some of our core defence business have meant that the first half of 1999/2000 has been extremely challenging. We are, therefore, having to control costs carefully at the traditional technology end of our business in order to optimise our financial performance. Also of vital importance are our nonfinancial targets because these reflect the scientific achievements on which our reputation and hence future income stream will be based. Last year, we experienced difficulties in setting the baselines for one or two of these, but we have taken managerial steps to ensure that our true achievements are recorded this year. It is, nevertheless, too early to predict the outcome of these measures.
  Overall, however, our ability to meet the targets will very much depend on a timely resolution of the debate over the future of DERA and the question of a public-private partnership announced in the Strategic Defence Review in July 1998. Naturally, such strategic uncertainty affects DERA staff and customers alike and, whilst our central direction remains unchanged, we need to establish a firm position from which to address the difficulties of our current trading environment.

  Key Targets for 1999/2000

  In Year Targets
  consistent with Treasury requirements, to achieve at least a 6% Return on Capital Employed.
  to set manpower chargeout rates for 2000/01 which reflect a reduction in DERA overheads compared with 1999/2000 budgeted levels.
  to increase new business income (from customers other than the MOD) to £140 million in 1999/2000.
  to increase the number of staff elected as Fellows of professional bodies by 10%.
  to achieve on time 90% of the agreed milestones on work for MOD customers.
  to increase the level of customer satisfaction, as measured by customer surveys.
  to establish at least 6 Defence Diversification Offices across the UK.

  Three Year Targets
  over a period of 3 years, to achieve a 20% increase in peer reviewed publications per professional.
  over a period of three years to increase by 50% the number of scientific teams assessed as 'world-class' in the technical assessment exercise.

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Army Recruitment and Training Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111729]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Training Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from M. A. Piper to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Key Targets for the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) and the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) for the year 1998/1999, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Deputy Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You should be aware that although the DAC was an Agency in its own right in 1998/1999, on 1 April 1999 it became part of the ATRA. For the year 1998/1999 therefore, there were two sets of Key Targets, one for each agency. For 1999/2000 and subsequent
  694W
  years, the DAC targets are subsumed within those of the ATRA and are not separately identified. Neither Agency has yet published their Annual Report and Accounts for 1998/1999. but expect to shortly.

  ATRA Key Targets 1998/1999:

  Key Target 1:
  To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for commissioned officers.
  Requirement: 642, Achievement: 591
  The continuing shortfall was due to insufficient numbers of potential officers recruited in previous years. The demographic trough continues to have an effect. The Agency has introduced an Officers Marketing Action Plan which aims to improve the level of enquiries and firm applications for commissions.
  Potential officers will be targeted in tertiary education as well as the traditional area of secondary education. The Agency has also introduced an improved "nurturing" process to maintain contact with potential officers throughout their education, prior to them joining.

  Key Target 2:
  To meet the Adjutant General's requirements for officers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Special to Arm training.
  Requirement: 632, Achievement: 580
  The shortfall results from the insufficient numbers being recruited in previous years resulting in lower numbers passing through to Special to Arm training. The action being taken to address the shortfall in KT1 will also address this KT.

  Key Target 3:
  To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for professional development training of officers.
  Requirement: 7,500, Achievement: 7,114
  Achievement of this target is entirely dependent upon release of officers from the Field Army to undertake such training. Exceptional operational commitments prevented officers being released to take up all the places allocated. More tautly defined training programmes have been introduced which resulted in a considerable improvement in performance over 1997/98, and it is anticipated that this will continue.

  Key Target 4:
  To meet the Adjutant General's requirements for soldiers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Special to Arm training.
  Requirement: 10,140, Achievement: 8,353
  Underachievement in recruiting and higher than anticipated wastage rates in Recruit Training (Phase 1) led to lower numbers entering Special to Arm training and therefore under performance in this KT. The Agency is putting in place mechanisms to improve both the quality of recruits entering the training pipeline and to make the training process more efficient. This is already showing signs of improving performance.

  Key Target 5:
  To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for soldiers' professional development training.
  Requirement: 55,500, Achieved: 52,183
  Again, exceptional operational commitments of the Field Army prevented soldiers being released to take up all the places allocated. More tautly defined training programmes have been introduced which resulted in a considerable improvement in performance over 1997/98, and it is anticipated that this will continue.

  Key Target 6:
  Achieve efficiency savings. During the year develop an Efficiency Index that measures output and associated costs as a baseline to achieve year on year improvements in efficiency.
  Target: £34.7M savings, Achievement: £28M savings

  695W
  The shortfall is due primarily to difficulties experienced with accounting for the pay of all Initial Trainees, for which the Agency assumed responsibility during the year. The development of the Efficiency Index has been achieved.
  Overall, the Agency continued to operate in a difficult environment, the economy has been buoyant, thus increasing competitive pressure on recruiting in the target age group. The effects of the increased level of operational commitment in the Field Army continued to have an effect, principally by reducing the availability of officers and soldiers for career developments courses. The introduction of more tautly defined training programmes has resulted in an improvement in performance in the current year and this is set to continue.
  DAC Targets met in 1998/1999:

  Key Target 1:
  To meet requirements for Military Personnel (MP) and Military Working Animals (MWA).
  Target: 100%, Achievement: 100%

  Key Target 2:
  To meet agreed customer satisfaction for trained quality output.
  Target: 95%, Achievement: 95%

  Key Target 4:
  To meet agreed customer satisfaction in timeliness of delivery.
  Target: 95%, Achievement: 96.3%

  Key Target 5:
  To achieve training success rates for Course Specific MWA.
  Target: 95%, Achievement: 100%

  Key Target 6:
  To achieve training success rates for MP.
  Target: 90%, Achievement: 94.1%
  DAC Target not met in 1998/1999:

  Key Target 3:
  To meet customer satisfaction in numbers of trained output quantity.
  Target: MWA—95%, MP—100%, Achievement: MWA—78.9%, MP—100%
  The shortfall in Military Working Animals was caused primarily by a shortage of suitable dogs being available and was compounded by staff shortages. This latter was caused by recruiting deficits in the past and although there have been improvements in this area, operational commitments by the Field Army are still causing problems. A number of initiatives have been introduced to overcome the shortfall in dogs, principally revised procurement procedures and veterinary screening procedures.

  Service Children's Education Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Service Children's Education agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111738]

  Annex A—Service Children's Education—Performance against key targets 1998–99

  KT No.

  Key target description

  Target (Percentage)

  Achievement

  Remarks

  1

  Exceed the 1997–98 UK LEA average percentage pass rate (measured as a percentage of pupil entries) gaining A* to C grade in 5 or more subjects at GCSE by 4 per cent

  44.3%

  47.4%

  —

  696W
  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Service Children's Education agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from David Wadsworth to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  Key Targets
  The Key Targets for 1998/99 for the Service Children's Education Agency, and our performance against them, are set out in our Annual Report and Accounts 1998/1999 (HC167), a copy of which was placed in the library of the House of Commons.
  In broad terms the performance of the Agency was judged in 98/99 against nine Key Targets; five directly related to education; the remainder covering efficiency, customer satisfaction and response times to enquiries. A final milestone target related to the introduction of an SCE nursery education scheme.
  The performance of the Agency against these targets is set out at Annexes A and B, attached.
  As you will see from those figures, I am pleased to report that, in the main, we met the overwhelming majority of our targets. Those that we did not meet are as follows:
  Key Target 4—The SATs targets at Key Stages 12, 2 and 3 (ages 7, 11 and 14)
  Although 11 of the 18 individual aspects to this target were achieved, 7 were not. These were:

  English—Key Stage 1 Test/Task, and Key Stage 3 Teacher Assessment

  Maths—Key Stage 1 Teacher Assessment and Key Stage 2 Test/Task

  Science—Key Stages 1 and 3 Teacher Assessment and Key Stage 3 Test/Task

  No specific reasons for failing to achieve these targets has yet been adduced. It should be noted that in all assessments at KS I, KS2 and KS3 our achievement scores were higher than English LEAs, sometimes significantly so (on average by +5.8%).
  Key Target 7—The Efficiency Target (reduction in per capita pupil costs, measured on an accruals basis)
  An unexpected drop in pupil numbers combined with increased financial investment in education, for example extra funding for the Literacy and Numeracy strategies, meant that this target was not met in 1998/99. The use of such a blunt measure of efficiency has now been judged to be unrealistic, given the continuing investment in education spending and teaching salaries. It has therefore been proposed that, for 1999/2000 and beyond, the Agency should develop a means to measure the "value added" by SCE. This will require further developments in baseline assessments and in pupil through-life tracking via Unique Pupil Numbers (UPNs).
  With regard to the future, our Key Targets for 99/00 have been modified to achieve an improvement each year on the Agency's performance on the previous year. This should reflect a more realistic but nevertheless challenging target in these subjects. My aspiration to improve our performance in 1999/2000 is being addressed by involving schools more closely in the target setting process, a continued commitment to the literacy and numeracy strategies through intensive in service training for teachers, and the greater involvement of the external advisers to Agency's Owner's, namely DfEE, HMI/Ofsted and the Chief Education Officer of Hampshire Local Education Authority to ensure that the targets are realistic.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  697W

  Annex A—Service Children's Education—Performance against key targets 1998–99

  KT No.

  Key target description

  Target (Percentage)

  Achievement

  Remarks

  2

  Exceed the 1997–98 UK LEA average percentage pass rate (as measured as a percentage of subject entries) at grades A to C level at A level by 2 per cent.

  54%

  60.3%

  —

  3

  Maintain an overall percentage pass rate for GNVQ intermediate level

  92%

  70–96%

  70 per cent. of those who commenced the course completed it in the year. 96% of those who completed it were successful

  4

  Achieve the following results at Standard Attainment Tasks and Tests (SATs) at each of ages 7, 11 and 14

  Please see Annex B

  Please see Annex B

  —

  5

  Achieve as a minimum satisfactory + in each OFSTED school inspection

  Sat+

  Achieved

  —

  6

  Implement the SCE elements of the MoD scheme for the provision of nursery education overseas to be completed by September 1998

  September 1998

  Achieved

  —

  7

  To achieve an overall reduction in per capita pupil costs, measured on an accruals basis

  2.5%

  Failed

  Unexpected drop in pupil numbers and increased spend on DfEE initiatives

  8

  Achieve an index of satisfaction with SCE within the Army Continuous Attitude Survey above 358

  +358

  +371

  —

  9

  Ensure percentage of enquiries and/or requests answered within 10 working days of receipt

  90%

  Achieved

  —

  Annex B—Key Target 4: National curriculum assessment results— 1998

  Percentage

  Subject/Key stage

  Target

  Achieved

  Variation

  English

  KS1

  Teacher Assessment

  87

  87

  0

  Reading Test/Task

  87

  85

  -2

  Writing Test/Task

  89

  89

  0

  KS2

  Teacher Assessment

  68

  71

  +3

  Test/Task

  71

  74

  +3

  KS3

  Teacher Assessment

  67

  64

  -3

  Test/Task

  73

  80

  +7

  Maths

  KS1

  Teacher Assessment

  89

  88

  -1

  Test/Task

  89

  90

  +1

  KS2

  Teacher Assessment

  71

  71

  0

  Test/Task

  73

  68

  -5

  KS3

  Teacher Assessment

  71

  71

  0

  Test/Task

  68

  70

  +2

  Science

  KS1

  Teacher Assessment

  90

  88

  -2

  KS2

  Teacher Assessment

  72

  74

  +2

  Test/Task

  78

  79

  +1

  KS3

  Teacher Assessment

  73

  66

  -7

  Test/Task

  74

  67

  -7

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Meteorological Office for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111750]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Met. Office's performance against its key performance targets in 1998–99. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of The Met. Office.
  Our targets in 1998–99, as announced in Hansard on 24 April 1998 (Col 714), were as follows:

  Key Target 1
  To achieve a value of at least 111.1 index points on 31 March 1999 from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1995, for the global Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) index, which measures the overall forecasting skill of the global NWP model;

  Key Target 2
  To achieve an index level of 104.0 by 31 March 2000 from a baseline of 400.0 at 31 March 1996, and to achieve an increase of at least 2.0 index points during 1998–99 for the UK NWP partial index, which measures the forecasting skill of the NWP model for the UK;
  699W
  Key Target 3
  To increase the index of service quality to at least 104.8 on 31 March 1999 from a baseline of 100.0 for 1996–97, in line with agreed customer requirements. The index covers representative services and products across defence civil aviation, public and business users;

  Key Target 4
  To improve efficiency from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997 to at least 108.0 on 31 March 1999 as measured by the agreed Efficiency Index;

  Key Target 5
  To achieve an overall return on capital employed (ROCE) of at least 7% taken year on year. For the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 to achieve an overall ROCE of at least 11.6% averaged over the two years;

  Key Target 6
  To make a contribution from commercial activities in 1998–99 of not less than £1.1 million, on the agreed basis of measurement.
  Our performance against these targets was published in our Annual Report and Accounts for 1999–99, copies of which are available in the library of the House, and is summarised in the following table:

  Key performance indicator

  Target

  Outturn

  Achieved

  UK NWP Index

  1104.2

  106.3

  Yes

  Global NWP Index

  111.1

  109.9

  No

  Service Quality Index

  104.8

  114.5

  Yes

  Efficiency Index

  108.0

  111.5

  Yes

  ROCE2

  7%

  310%

  Yes

  Commercial Contribution

  £l.lm

  £1.8m

  Yes

  1 The Index score at the end of 1997–98 was 102.2.

  2 The basis of calculating ROCE changed during 1998–99 as a result of the introduction of FRS12, a financial reporting standard that affected the accounting treatment of provisions. ROCE performance in the table is shown pre-FRS12, being the basis upon which the 1998–99 target was set. The post FRS12 outturn was 6.3%.

  3 The average ROCE for 1997–97 and 1998–99 was13.8% pre-FRS12 (13.5% post-FRS12).

  As you will see, we exceeded our financial performance targets by a significant margin and substantially improved our service quality and efficiency. We also improved our UK Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) Index, which is a measure of our underlying forecasting accuracy for the UK, by a significant margin. However, we fell just short of the Global NWP target. Problems with the model's handling of the South Pole region were identifiedand

  Percentage

  Key target

  Target

  Achievement

  1

  To provide operational imagery intelligence (IMINT) support as follows:

  Priority 1 tasks to be completed within 24 hours of receipt of appropriate imagery

  98

  100

  Priority 2 tasks within 48 hours

  92

  100

  Priority 3 tasks within 7 days

  88

  91

  2

  To provide detached Service personnel as required, up to a total of 22 at any one time

  Achieved

  3

  To complete Strategic, non-operational intelligence requirements and other tasks:

  Priority 1 tasks to be completed within 24 hours of receipt of appropriate imagery

  92

  95

  Priority 2 tasks within 48 hours

  88

  95

  Priority 3 tasks within 7 days

  80

  83

  Priority 4 tasks within 6 weeks

  75

  89

  4

  To revise the methodology of measuring the degree of customer satisfaction with the service provided

  Achieved

  5

  To achieve an improvement of efficiency

  2.5

  3.2

  6

  To conduct evaluations of imagery reconnaissance systems for Government departments within agreed times and allocated resources

  Achieved

  700W
  and rectified, and benefits of a higher resolution model introduced in January 1998 began to feed through towards the end of 1998–99. As a result, the target score was achieved less than 2 months into 1999–2000. Moreover, comparison with the performance for global models run by other Meteorological services shows that, despite the failure to achieve our own challenging performance target, we have maintained our position as a world-class weather forecasting centre.
  To improve Global NWP performance in 1999–2000, a number of further enhancements to the model have been introduced, and I am pleased to say that we are currently on course to meet both of our NWP targets this year. We are also on track to deliver greater in-year cost efficiency, part of which has been anticipated in agreed prices for 1999/2000 with the remainder to be passed on to our customers through further price reductions in future years. We have cut the planned level of ROCE substantially, in line with our strategy of investment for growth, which will enable us, inter-alia, to improve service quality (especially forecasting accuracy and responsiveness to customer needs) and, largely through increased automation, generate further down-stream efficiency improvements. We are, however, unlikely to meet our target for commercial contribution, although our commercial business remains profitable. We have already introduced changes to our commercial division, including the appointment of a new Managing Director, which we are confidence will increase both revenue and profitability in 2000–01.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111742]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Steve Lloyd to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about our Agency's Key Targets and whether or not they were achieved for 1998–99. All targets were met in full.
  Details of the achievements are listed below and contained in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

  701W
  Action taken by the Agency to continue to achieve its targets and where possible improve performance include:

  a. The continuing refinement of the Re-organisation of all areas of the Agency, to give a better focus on satisfying tasking needs.

  b. A methodology for measuring customer satisfaction prototyped during FY 99/00.

  c. The continued pursuit of a clear methodology of true output measurement.

  I hope that you will find that this answer gives you the information that you are seeking.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Army Technical Support Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111747]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from A. D. Ball to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Key Target achievement for 1998–99 for the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA), as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the ATSA.
  As reported in the ATSA Annual Report and Accounts 1998/99, copies of which were laid in the Library of the House on 26 July 1999, ATSA did not achieve one part of one of its 7 Key Targets set for 1998–99. The Key Targets, their achievement, the factors affecting their outcome and the action taken to improve performance for 1999–2000 are detailed at Annex A for your convenience of consideration.
  The partial failure to achieve on of the Key Targets is also explained in detail as follows:

  Key Target 4 Part 2: Despatch 90% of routine technical publications within 24 working days of receipt of the demand.

  Although ATSA's cumulative annual achievement for 1998–99 was 85.3% of nearly 70,000 demands, the 90% target was exceeded in 6 of the 12 monthly reporting periods. This was despite an 11% increase in annual cumulative demand due to the operation and roulement of units in the Balkans and further complicated by unforeseen complete reissues of the extensive Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank support publications.

  Performance against the Key Targets for 1999–2000 is monitored by the Chief Executive and Executive Management Board of the Agency on a monthly basis. This performance is reported quarterly to the Agency's Owner and annually to Ministers through publication of the Next Steps Report and the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. Key Target achievement is also considered by the National Audit Office during the annual submission of the Accounts for external audit.
  As at 31 January 2000, the Agency is on target to achieve all of its Key Targets for 1999–2000.
  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  ATSA Key Targets 1998–99

  Definitions, performance and proposed changes for 1999–2000
  Key Target 1: To influence equipment design by obtaining formal tasking from Project Managers/Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) Managers in 80% of appropriate ILS projects.
  702W
  Result: Achieved: 104 (80%) of 130 appropriate ILS projects receiving tasking.
  Improvement: There is no change to the 80% target for 1999–2000. This list of appropriate projects is reviewed and updated by the Customer every 6 months and thus offers fresh challenge each time this occurs.
  Key Target 2: To recommend at least 10% gross cost saving in Advanced Order Spares purchasing for appropriate non-ILS projects without reducing the equipment sustainability or availability.
  Result: Exceeded: A saving of £3.763M (63%) was recommended against spares listings valued at £5.96M.
  Improvement: Discontinued as a Key Target for 1999–2000 since the proportion of cost savings are determined more by manufacturers' recommendations than factors within ATSA's control. As ILS and off-the-shelf procurement become the normal approach and replace Advanced Order Spares procurement, this area will become progressively less important. Although no longer a Key Target, this process of scrutiny and review is still being conducted.
  Key Target 3: To provide a complete and accurate answer to 92% of ad hoc enquiries within 2 working days.
  Result: Exceeded: 66,818 (96.8%) of 69,030 ad hoc queries received were answered within the period.
  Improvement: The target is increased from 92% to 94% whilst also noting a typical 8% increase in annual demand.
  Key Target 4: To despatch new and reprinted technical publications within the period from receipt of demand as follows:

  For priority demands, 90% within 5 working days

  For routine demands, 90% within 24 working days

  Result: Part Exceeded and Part Not Achieved: 1,386 (99.4%) of the 1,395 priority demands, and 59,542 (85.3%) of 69,542 routine demands were met within the target periods.
  Improvement: The target levels are being maintained in 1999–2000 in recognition of the steady increase in annual cumulative demand over recent years. Resource levels are unchanged. Increased efficiency is continually sought by adjusting batch-processing techniques.
  Key Target 5: To complete at least: 90% of Operational projects and 75% of Priority A projects before the agreed target date.
  Result: Exceeded: 5 (100%) Operational projects and 91 (89.2%) of 102 Priority A projects were completed by the agreed target date.
  Improvement: The target coverage is being extended by the inclusion of an additional target of 60% of Priority B projects; the other targets remain the same. This will increase the measured target scope to 80% of all projects received.
  Key Target 6: To satisfy 90% of customers in the handling of technical projects.
  Results: Exceeded: 1,331 (98.1%) of 1,357 completed projects received a grading of satisfied (or better) by the customer on closure questionnaires.
  Improvement: Target increased to 92% for 1999–2000. In addition, results are validated through sample customer interviews.
  Key Target 7: To provide a considered response to 90% of Equipment Failure Reports (or equivalent) submissions within 10 working days of receipt.
  Result: Exceeded: 22,684 (91.9%) of 24,684 EFRs received considered responses within the stated period.
  Improvement: To be discontinued as a Key Target for 1999–2000. The EFR system is currently under review and major changes are expected. In the meantime the main customer (HQ LAND) has agreed to the introduction of a new, more cost-effective system of consolidated bulletins rather than individual responses.

  Defence Transports and Movements Executive
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Transports and Movements Executive for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111756]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from P. T. W. Leaning to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about the targets for the Defence Transport and Movements Executive, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility, being the Chief Executive of the Agency which replaced the former DTMX in April 1999.
  It is pleasing to report that DTMX achieved all its Key Targets for 1998–99 and the results of that financial year's performance were included in the Annual Report and Accounts which were laid before Parliament on 27 January this year (Library number 132, pages 10–14). For your ease of reference, I am providing extract details of each of the four Key Targets concerned, at Annex A.
  Also included in the DTMX Annual Report and Accounts (page 27) is the background behind the launch of our new Agency, into which DTMX was subsumed. Basically, as part of the Strategic Defence Review it was decided to form one Agency which would be responsible for the provision of surface (road, rail and sea) and air transport and movements support to the Ministry of Defence. The Defence Transport and Movements Agency was, therefore, formed from an amalgamation of DTMX, the Joint Transport and Movements Staff (Northwood) and elements of 38 Gp RAF/Air Movements Executive (London, High Wycombe and Halton).
  DTMA has been able to use the lessons learnt by its former constituent parts but the way that it operates, and the type of support that it provides, is different to that of its predecessors. With that in mind, it has been set new challenging targets, rather than continue with any of the targets set for its predecessors. Again, I am providing details of the four Key Targets for 1999–2000, at Annex B.

  DTMX Key Targets for 1998–99

  Key Target 1
  To exceed 90% of Customers' perceived satisfaction of requirements.
  Results: In conjunction with the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA), the DTMX Plans Team developed a survey to both map the customer base and subsequently monitor satisfaction levels. The analysis of the survey results has proved useful and encouraging. Of the 371 surveys sent out, 60% were returned. The overall satisfaction rating was 92%. Desk officers have followed up these results with customers and in particular investigated those where DTMX scored less than the prescribed 90%.

  Key Target 2
  To establish the baseline for the quality of the Unaccompanied Baggage (UB) Service, to enable subsequent measurement of improvements.
  Results: Although DTMX had been given until May 1999 to establish a performance baseline, it was decided that with the incorporation of DTMX into DTMA, a set of results would be compiled for the period January-March 1999 for each of the UB business areas, based on the existing, DTMX compiled, survey data.
  Outside of DTMX a number of different surveys were already in use by the Divisional and District Headquarters. To avoid 'survey fatigue' it was agreed that DTMX would sponsor a single set of common surveys covering the whole gambit of the
  704W
  Unaccompanied Baggage Service. These surveys were taken into general use at the end of 1998 and will, in the future, provide a much wider data set, allowing the Agency to monitor customer perceptions continuously and thereby improve the service.

  Key Target 3
  To exceed 90% satisfaction of Customers' requirements.
  Results: Given that the majority of the service provided is carried out through agents and contractors, it was acknowledged that a system of negative reporting would allow us to concentrate on supplier failure and would best support customer requirements. High volume activities with few complaints have raised the percentage satisfaction rate, but there are areas that have been highlighted which require attention. Overall 210 complaints were recorded during the period and these are summarised as follows:

  The performance of our suppliers to customers' satisfaction exceeded 99%.

  Customers with complaints or problems are required to contact DTMX with the details, these are then confirmed in writing, investigated and if upheld recorded as a supplier failure against the target. In order to improve the capture of complaints data, action is in hand to incorporate a system of complaints logging on CARGONET, the Agency's primary data warehouse and UBMIS which is specifically tailored towards the Unaccompanied Baggage Service.

  Key Target 4
  To establish unit costs per output data to enable the setting of realistic efficiency targets for subsequent years.
  Results: Through the development of the Agency's Activity Based Costing model, it has been possible to identify unit costs down to individual loads. For example it is now possible to identify the average cost of sending 1 tonne of aggregate to the Falkland Islands or of delivering a consignment of ammunition to one of the Ammunition Depots.
  Many of the outputs produced or sponsored by the Agency are conducted under call-off contracts which are casted on a schedule of prices.

  DTMA Key Targets for 1999–2000

  Key Target 1
  To meet the customers' requirements as specified in customer supplier agreements to deliver:

  a. 90% or more of agency transactions within agreed criteria.

  b. 90% or more of the services provided under call-off contracts at a satisfactory level.

  This KT measures the quantity, quality and timeliness of the 36 services of the Agency as specified by its customers through the performance indicators contained in the Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs). The CSAs have been developed with customers and will ultimately provide the basis for Agency funding. The services provided by DTMA fall into 2 categories: those processed directly by Agency staff and those that are provided as contracted capability against which a user is able to call-off.

  Key Target 2
  To establish baseline data for the administrative unit costs by 31 December 1999.
  The administrative unit cost is defined as the cost of completing an Agency processed transaction. These costs will be obtained through the use of an Activity Based Costing model, which will need to be developed in year one with a target date of 31 December 1999 set to obtain baseline data. Efficiencies will be measured from this baseline in future years.

  Key Target 3
  To demonstrate net added value.
  One of the benefits that DTMA ought to be able to offer its customers is the contract price advantage achieved through its corporate negotiating power and skills. This KT aims to demonstrate that the DTMA operating costs incurred by the provision of contracted services are more than covered by this

  705W
  price advantage and hence add value to the Department as a whole. This will be achieved by comparison with specific indices provided by the Office for National Statistics.

  Key Target 4
  To achieve at least a satisfactory rating in the provision of operational transport and movements support.
  This KT relates to the output in support of planning the deployment, sustainment and recovery of forces on operations that may not be subject to a CSA. It also includes the MOD tasking authority for those assets owned by HQ 38 Group and Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary (COMRFA). This activity is a core Agency task supporting military operations and force projection. PJHQ as the principal operational Customer, will be requested to provide a biennial assessment of the Agency's operational performance based on post exercise and audit reports on Defence operational capability.

  Military Survey
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Military Survey for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111764]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Military Survey Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from P. R. Wildman to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Key Target achievement for 1998–99 for the Military Survey Defence Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Agency Chief Executive.
  As reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Account, Military Survey achieved five of the six Key Targets set by its owner for 1998–99. The sixth was achieved one month behind schedule. This delay was due to the need to complete higher priority work in support of operations. Full details of the Key Targets are attached at Annex A.
  The Agency monitors the performance of its Key Targets and detailed Business Plan Objectives via an electronic reporting spreadsheet, which is supplied to the Directors' Board each month. The Directors' Board Pack is supplemented with a printout containing details of all those objectives which contribute to overall performance together with commentary from the managers responsible. The introduction of these procedures has ensured that appropriate action is taken in a timely manner.
  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  Those targets of the Military Survey for 1998–99 which were achieved

  Key Target 1:
  To satisfy 100% of requirements for geographic support to current operations within the timescale agreed between the Agency and its customers.
  Outcome: Achieved

  Key Target 3:
  To complete the agreed Annual Production Programme (APP) on the time and to cost.
  Outcome: Achieved

  Key Target 4:
  To establish by March 1999 a process for measuring the degree of satisfaction the library service provides.
  Outcome: Achieved
  706W
  Key Target 5:
  To maintain the required readiness state of the required Field Support elements of the Agency as required by the Department.
  Outcome: Achieved

  Key Target 6:
  To achieve a 2.5% improvement in efficiency.
  Outcome: Achieved

  Those targets of the military survey for 1998–99 which were not achieved

  Key Target 2:
  To agree with the Joint Customer Group by March 1999, a process for measuring the degree of customer satisfaction with the service provided.
  Outcome: Achieved at the end of April 1999
  Factors affecting the outcome: Publication of the paper defining the process for measuring customer satisfaction was delayed due to the need to complete higher priority work in support of operations. The paper was agreed at the end of April 1999—a delay of one month.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Bills Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111730]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from I. S. Elrick to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning performance against the targets set for the Defence Bills Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The seven targets set for the Defence Bills Agency for 1998/99 are detailed below and performance was set out in the Agency's 1998/99 Annual Report and Accounts, a copy of which was placed in the library of the House on 13 July 1999. The first six were achieved in full but the seventh only attained 95.7% against a target of 100%.

  1. To pay 97% of correctly presented bills within 11 working days;

  2. To pay 100% of correctly presented bills within 30 calendar days;

  3. To raise 100% of invoices within 5 working days;

  4. To deliver services within the agreed price of £15.587 million for the financial year;

  5. To increase the average number of bills processed annually by each member of staff to 6,555;

  6. To ensure CAPITAL compliance by 1 January 1999.

  7. To meet the criteria contracted for in the Service Level Agreement.

  Performance against this final target was affected by the need, in order to meet higher priorities, to divert Agency resources from the fifteen lower-level performance indicators which are aggregated into a single target. The most significant of these higher priorities was the need to alter the Agency's business processes to accommodate the Statutory Interest on Commercial Debt (Interest) Act in November 1998. The Agency also diverted resources to assist the Department in its development of resource accounting and to undertake preparatory work on the Agency's extensive computer resources to ensure millennium compliance. In addition the Agency

  707W
  assimilated a 6% increase in bill throughput numbers compared to the previous financial year, processing some 3.7 million bills in total.
  To improve performance in 1999/2000 the Agency's targets were redefined following a triennial Prior Options review. This moved the main emphasis of the Agency's targets to the improvement of unit costs which could be independently benchmarked against commercial comparators. There was also a significant tightening of the targets in other areas.
  The Agency has responded to these changed circumstances by preparing a Corporate Plan which is designed to achieve these new and demanding challenges. The main thrusts of the Plan are:
  (i) greater commitment to E-commerce in both internal and external communications;
  (ii) the more effective utilisation of Information Technology in business processes; and
  (iii) the use of European Quality Foundation Excellence Model benchmarking techniques to ensure that best practice is used throughout the Agency.
  The deliberately challenging new targets are not being met fully in this first year of the new Service Level Agreement. However, significant progress towards meeting the overarching outcomes contained in the Service Level Agreement has been achieved during 1999–2000 and measures have been taken to ensure that performance will be improved further during 2000–2001. Whilst some of the key targets are not being met in the current year, bill payments performance is still the highest to date in real terms and puts the Agency in the top 10% of large commercial and public sector enterprises in Europe, as measured in independent benchmarking exercises.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Army Personnel Centre for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111746]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from G. A. M. Hammond to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre (APC), in his absence on business, to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the performance targets for the APC for the year 1998/99, as this matter falls within the responsibility of this agency.
  I should explain that a copy of the APC Annual Report and Accounts 1998/99, published in July 1999, was placed in the library of the House of Commons. Annex A to the report provides details of APC performance against Key Ministerial Targets. The APC met its Key Targets for 1998/99 with the exception of Key Target 3 (KT3) - Notice of Posting, which is expressed as the percentage of personnel posted by the APC who were given at least six months' notice of their individual move. The achievement against this target averaged 25% suggesting that the target was unrealistic in the changed conditions since the target was set. With the continuing level of operational commitments and Strategic Defence Review (SDR) implementation which started in early 1999, this target has been reviewed in the light of this experience, and subject to Ministerial approval, may be adjusted in the APC Business Plan for 2000–01.
  I hope that this helps to explain the position.

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111762]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation was disestablished on 31 March 1999.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Animal Centre for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111734]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Animal Centre (DAC) ceased to be a defence agency on 30 March 1999. The DAC was absorbed into the Army Training and Recruiting Agency on 1 April 1999.

  General Security Agreement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the 1961 General Security Agreement in the Library. [111485]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The 1961 General Security Agreement between the UK Government and the US Government is currently a classified document. Before the document can be released into the public domain both signatories must agree to its declassification. We are therefore discussing the possibility of declassification with the US authorities. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House when these discussions are complete.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what age restrictions exist for the military personnel who take part in the service volunteer programme at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; [112370]

  (2) on what date the Porton Down volunteers helpline was opened; and how many individuals have contacted it since it was opened; [112374]

  (3) what recent studies have been carried out by the chemical defence establishment at Potion Down to establish whether short-term exposure to (a) the chemical agent BZ and (b) the glycollate MPIPG can cause long-term illnesses; [112372]

  (4) how many times since 1 March 1998 the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down has supplied information about former volunteers to the War Pension Agency when those volunteers have submitted a claim to the Agency; [112376]
  709W
  (5) what is his Department's estimate of the percutaneous lethal dose of liquid sarin (GB) nerve agent for an averagely-built person; [112367]

  (6) how many former service volunteers have visited the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down to inspect records of their experiments and discuss their tests with members of staff since 1 January 1998; [112375]

  (7) how many military personnel took part in the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down during 1999; [112373]

  (8) what work has been carried out by the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down to develop a test to identify the relative sensitivity of different individuals to the effects of nerve agents. [112377]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm for Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 8 March 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary questions about the service volunteer programme at Porton Down since the laboratories at this site are now operated by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  The Porton Down volunteers helpline was opened in February 1998. Since then, some 250 former volunteers and/or their representatives have contacted the line. Ten volunteers have visited Porton Down since 1 January 1998 to view and discuss records with members of the staff. CBD has also supplied information about former volunteers to the War Pensions Agency when those volunteers have submitted a claim to the Agency on 28 occasions since 1 March 1998.
  During 1999, there were 71 military volunteer attendances at CBD Porton Down and 13 at HMS Phoenix, the Naval Nuclear and Biological Centre and fire training school for a study programme carried out under the auspices of the volunteer programme. The age of participants depends on the requirements of the individual study but is generally in the range from 18 to 45 years.
  CBD has not undertaken any work to develop a test to identify the relative sensitivity of different individuals to the effects of nerve agents. No work involving exposure to either the chemical agent BZ or the glycollate MPIPG has been undertaken since the 1970s. None of the pre 1970s work was to establish if short-term exposure resulted in long-term illness.
  I am withholding details of the Ministry of Defence estimates on the toxic doses of nerve agents including sarin (GB) under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information because their disclosure would cause harm to defence. As required under the Code, due account was taken in reaching this decision of the nature of the information and the possible public interest in disclosure.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Test Pilots
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer test pilots from DERA's Aircraft Test and Evaluation Sector at Boscombe Down to RAF Strike Command; and if he will make a statement. [112450]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: The test pilots who support the work of DERA's Aircraft Test and Evaluation Sector at Boscombe Down are currently administered and line managed by RAF Personnel and Training Command. From 1 April 2000, this
  710W
  responsibility will be transferred to RAF Strike Command. This recognises that most of the test pilot output of the Aircraft Test and Evaluation Sector is in support of RAF Strike Command.

  Floods (Mozambique)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is giving to aid the flood victims in Mozambique; and at what cost. [113342]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is providing four RAF Puma helicopters with around 100 support personnel, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary FORT GEORGE with five RN Sea King helicopters to assist in the flood relief efforts in Mozambique.

  The overall no loss costs (which exclude salaries and other sunk costs) are yet to be finalised. Assuming a two-week deployment, we expect the additional costs for the Pumas to be up to £1.8 million, and up to £1.4 million for FORT GEORGE. Exceptionally, £615,000 of the costs of the Pumas will be offset by the MOD against the costs of the exercise in Norway from which the helicopters have been withdrawn. The remainder will be borne by the Department for International Development.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military helicopters have been sent to Mozambique and South Africa to provide humanitarian aid for flood victims. [113300]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK has sent a total of nine military helicopters to provide assistance to the international relief efforts in Mozambique. This comprises four RAF Pumas and five RN Sea King helicopters on board Royal Fleet Auxiliary FORT GEORGE. The Puma aircraft travelled via South Africa en route to Mozambique.

  Defence Medical Training Organisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Medical Training Organisation for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111753]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Medical Training Organisation. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Brigadier J. R. Brown to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 8 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about our targets for 1998–99 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Medical Training Organisation.
  Our targets for 1998–99 are shown in the following table along with the outturn and achievement for that year. As you will see we achieved or exceeded all but three of our targets. We failed to meet our target to apply a Systems Approach to Training to a minimum of 33% of appropriate courses. This was because we had three vacant posts in the Division responsible for this work during this period. These posts have now been filled and we are on track to

  711W
  achieve our target in this area for 1999/2000. We also narrowly missed our target to deliver 95% of Common Core Course trainees on time as we only achieved 94.3%. Also our target to ensure that

  Ministerial key Targets 1989–99

  Target/ Outturn

  Targets, outturns and achievements 1998–99

  Target for 1999–2000

  Efficiency

  Develop and implement a corporate index of efficiency that will then form a baseline for measuring year on year efficiency improvements

  Target

  By 31 March 1999

  To achieve 1.5% efficiency gain in matching capacity to the AATR

  Outturn

  Achieved1

  Throughput

  Ensure that availability meets the requirements as defined in the Annual Agreed Training Requirement (AATR)

  Target

  100%

  This target has been merged with efficiency

  Outturn

  99.7%

  Quality

  To achieve the following academic success rate for the categories of training shown:

  Common Core Course

  Target

  92%

  94%

  Outturn

  98.7%

  Specialist Registrars

  Target

  95%

  96%

  Outturn

  99.2%

  Pre Registration Nurses

  Target

  96%

  96%

  Outturn

  97.4%

  The following % of trainees achieving academic success to be delivered on time agreed with the customer:

  Common Core Course

  Target

  95%

  96%

  Outturn

  94.3%

  Specialist Registrars

  Target

  96%

  96%

  Outturn

  100%

  Pre Registration Nurses

  Target

  98%

  98%

  Outturn

  100%

  Ensure comprehensive application of a Systems Approach to Training to a minimum of X% of all appropriate courses

  Target

  33%

  33%

  Outturn

  28% this target was missed due to three vacant posts in Training Development Division

  Other

  Establish and agree with customers the baseline requirements for individual baseline services training by X date

  Target

  31 March 1999

  Establish and agree with customers the requirement for external medical services training by 31 March 2000

  Outturn

  Achieved for DMTO course schedule. Target extended to incorporate external training

  Achieve a satisfactory rating of customer satisfaction

  Target

  Satisfaction Customer

  Outturn

  Customers satisfied but no formal rating applied. Customer Satisfaction Survey to be run in 1999

  1 1999–2000 is baseline year for index

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Vetting Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111743]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Vetting Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.
  712W
  availability meets the requirement as defined in the Annual Agreed Training Requirement where we aimed for 100% but only achieved 99.7%.

  Letter from Michael Wilson to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 8 March 2000:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State, in view of my responsibilities as Chief Executive of the Defence Vetting Agency, to provide a detailed response to your Named Day Written Question 111743.
  The DVA was set 6 Key Targets in 1998–1999, relating to quality, timeliness and efficiency. The performance of the Agency against these is reflected in the Annual Report and Accounts, which is available in the library of the House of Commons. The complete list of Key Targets and their achievement is shown below.
  1. To maintain quality standards to a 95% level through compliance with agreed procedures, and to develop quality improvement targets in the light of a Defence-wide customer survey. Achieved.

  713W
  2. To complete 85% of Security Checks (SC) within 6 weeks. Achieved.
  3. To complete 71% of Counter Terrorist Checks (CTC) within 6 weeks. Achieved.
  4. To complete 85% of Developed Vetting (DV) checks within 6 months. Achieved.
  5. To reduce the 1997/1998 average times for SC, CTC and DV by 5%. SC and CTC achieved. DV not achieved - failed by 6%.
  a. As explained in the Annual Report, this was a new target in 1998/1999, and each of the individual performance indicators was to be reviewed in the light of performance achieved. Thus, there was known to be some uncertainty surrounding these targets from the outset.
  b. Each DV case involves at least one face-to-face interview with the vetting subject, and a number of further interviews with their referees. The number of referees interviewed varies from case to case depending on information available. And the time it takes to arrange and complete all the interviews on any particular case is very variable. For reasons that are not altogether clear, it proved more difficult in 1998/1999 than in 1997/1998 to line up Service personnel in the Army and in the RAF for interview. High turbulence may be a factor.
  c. Failure against the target has not caused undue difficulty for the Services. The same target has been set for 1999/2000, and looks like being met.
  6. To maintain the 1997/1998 Unit Cost of Output. Achieved.
  In 1999–2000 the agency will be preparing to collocate at York from its existing locations in central London, Portsmouth, Woolwich and Corsham. In view of this, no improvement in performance has been anticipated during the period.
  I hope this explains the position. Please let me know if you require further information.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the MoD Police for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111763]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. I have asked the Chief Constable to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 8 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about targets for 1998–99 as this matter falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  The Ministry of Defence Police Agency were set the following Key Targets for 1998–99:
  By 31 March 1999 to have completed all remaining Service Level Agreements with the Agency customers.
  By 31 March 1999 to have established an MDP Office Watch initiative at a minimum of 20 MoD locations nation-wide.
  In financial year 1998–99 to have in place Local Policing and Security Plans at each MDP policed Establishment.
  By 31 March 1999, in accordance with Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's recommendations, to have put in place agreed Area Policing Team (AN') performance indicators which will enable the Agency to set targets for APT performance improvement in financial year 1999–00.
  714W
  To achieve, across Chief Constable MDP's retained element of the MDP budget, an overall efficiency saving of 2.5 per cent.
  To contribute to the achievement of Departmentally Mandated Standards for project CAPITAL (introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting).
  All of these Key Targets were achieved in full, as reported in my Annual Report for 1998–99, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Further demanding targets were put in place for 1999–00, and performance against them is monitored on a regular basis.

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111728]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Brigadier P. D. Foxton to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 8 March 2000:
  I refer to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning performance against targets set for the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) in 1998/99 and what action has been taken to improve performance in 1999–2000. As Chief Executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA), the successor organisation to ABSDA, I am replying as this subject falls within my area of responsibility.
  As reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, which were placed in the House of Commons Library on 26 January 2000, ABSDA performance against its Key Targets for 1998/99 was:

  a. Key Target 1:
  To exceed 95% satisfaction for the processing of Consumers' authorised demands. This target was achieved.

  b. Key Target 2:
  To meet the agreed Customers' requirements for the provision of ammunition Units of Space (UOS) and ammunition processing facilities. This target was achieved.

  c. Key Target 3:
  To exceed Consumers' perceived satisfaction of the Agency. This target was achieved.

  d. Key Target 4:
  To exceed 90% of Consumers' authorised demands within Supply Chain Processing Time (SCPT) Depot Processing Times (DPT). This target was achieved.

  e. Key Target 5:
  To exceed a one day improvement in receipts processing cycle times. This target was achieved.

  f. Key Target 6:
  To establish the unit cost per output baseline to enable subsequent measurement of efficiency improvements. This target was achieved in relation to the available resources. Work on deriving costs of output should be able to follow on from the results of the Activity Based Costing trial at ABSDA sites.
  A series of strategies were introduced to improve performance in 1999/2000. They are Total Quality Management, Business Excellence, Activity Based Management, and Investors in People, together with improved information systems. I am confident that these measures will build on the excellent foundations laid by DSDA's predecessor organisations in delivering improvements in both quality of service and efficiency. An early indication of their success is the selection of DSDA as a finalist in the TNT Modernising Government Partnership Awards.

  715W
  ABSDA ceased to exist on 31 March 1999. The Agency's ammunition functions were transferred to Defence Munitions and its non-explosives tasks were merged with a range of storage and distribution functions from the other Services and the MOD from DSDA.

  Depleted Uranium Ammunition
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research he has commissioned into a substitute for depleted uranium ammunition. [112840]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Ministry of Defence has for many years conducted research into a range of weapon materials and designs. Research continues to include the search for potential alternatives to depleted uranium and to identify and characterise their performance and environmental impact.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the carrying out of radiation/contamination monitoring surveys at the entrance of submarine reactor chambers on a 12 hourly basis. [112844]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: All personnel are monitored immediately on exit from the reactor compartment on-board a submarine. As a routine, the entrance to the reactor compartment is monitored for contamination at least on a daily basis. During maintenance periods a radiation survey is undertaken on initial entry to the reactor compartment and repeated as necessary.

  RAF Logistics Support Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the RAF Logistics Support Services Agency. [113892]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the restructuring taking place within the Defence Logistics following the Strategic Defence Review, the RAF Logistics Support Services Agency will close on 31 March 2000. The Agency's constituent elements will be transferred elsewhere in Defence Logistics Organisation. It is not envisaged that this will result, at least initially, in any geographical relocations or redundancies, and staff will continue to operate from their current locations.

SCOTLAND

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what European Union legislation prevents the Scottish Executive from funding Scottish students at universities in England in the manner proposed by the Executive that funding should be provided for such students at Scottish universities; and what recent advice he has received and from whom, on this matter. [112042]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Scottish Executive. It is neither the custom nor practice of the UK Government or the Scottish Executive in Scotland to publish their legal advice.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112667]

  Dr. Reid
  The annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" provides information on a range of public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those public bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions list public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE and CJD
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the French Minister for Agriculture on the increased incidence of BSE and CJD in France. [109850]

  Ms Quin:
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The latest European Commission report, dated 21 January 2000, stated that the French government had reported a total of 77 cases of BSE, including one case imported from Switzerland. We are aware of two cases of vCJD in France.

  These issues are primarily for the Commission and individual member states, rather than for bilateral discussion between member states.

  Farm Repossessions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in the last three years have lost their businesses because of repossession of their farms by lenders. [110444]

  Ms Quin
  There are no statistics on farm repossessions but I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 528W.

  Primate Exports
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries to which the UK exports primates; and what species of primates are imported to the UK other than macaques. [111150]

  Ms Quin
  During 1999 my Department issued health certification for the export of primates to the following countries:

  Australia

  Croatia

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  Germany

  Hungary

  Indonesia

  717W

  Israel

  Poland

  Republic of Ireland

  Russia

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka.

  In 1999 import licences were issued for the following species of primates:

  Crab-eating Macaque (Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis)

  Red Bellied Lemur (Lemur rubriventer)

  White Fronted Brown Lemur (Eulemur fuluus albifrons)

  Humboldt's Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix lagothricha)

  White Collared Lemur (Eulemur Fulvus albocollaris)

  Crowned Lemur (Lemur coronatus)

  Western Gentle Lemur (Hapalemur griseus occidentalis)

  Pale headed Saki (Pithecia pithecia)

  Dusky Titi Monkey (Callicevus moloch)

  Owl Faced Monkey (Cercopithecus hamlyni)

  Geoffroy's Marmoset (Callithrix geoffroyi)

  Western black and white Colobus (Colobus Polykomos Polykomos)

  Golden Lion Tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia rosalia)

  Capuchin Monkey (Cebus albifrons)

  Squirrel Monkey (Saimiri sciureus)

  Tamarin (Saguinus midas)

  Binturang (Artictis Binturang)

  Emperor Tamarin (Saguinus imperator)

  Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mulatta)

  Ring Tailed Lemur (Lemur catta)

  Colombian Black Spider Monkey (Ateles fusciceps robostus)

  Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)

  Golden Headed Lion Tamarin (Leontideus chrysomelas)

  Sclater's Lemur (Lemur flaurifrons)

  Red Ruffed Lemur (Vercia variegata rubra)

  Siamang (Syndalactus)

  Moloch Gibbon (Hylobates moloch moloch)

  Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla)

  Gelada Baboon (Theropithecus gelada)

  Lesser Slow Loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus).

  Agriculture (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) pig units, (b) dairy units and (c) poultry units there were in Somerset in (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99 and (v) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111962]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The table shows the number of main holdings in Somerset with (a) pigs, (b) dairy cattle and (c) poultry.

  Holdings with pigs

  Holdings with dairy cattle

  Holdings with poultry1

  1990

  473

  1,724

  950

  1991

  463

  1,685

  927

  1996

  350

  1,422

  n/a

  718W

  Holdings with pigs

  Holdings with dairy cattle

  Holdings with poultry1

  1997

  371

  1,371

  n/a

  1998

  382

  1,326

  815

  1999

  372

  1,289

  851

  1 Fowls including layers and broilers

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent informal discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss state aid for the UK pig industry; [111719]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with HM Treasury regarding schemes to compensate pig farmers for BSE-related costs. [111720]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friends the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer discuss many issues, both formally and informally. The Government are well aware of the current market conditions in the UK pig sector and of the representations which have been made for the introduction of some form of aid to compensate for the costs of BSE control measures falling on the pig sector. The scope for providing state aid is an issue which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has looked at very closely and will continue to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, any investment by Government must be linked to the long-term strengthening of the industry as part of an agreed overall strategy. To this end, my officials are in close touch with the National Pig Association and others.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he had with representatives of the pig industry in January regarding schemes to compensate pig farmers for BSE-related costs. [111708]

  Ms Quin
  We have had a number of meetings with representatives of the pig industry in recent months which have included BSE-related costs. This is an issue which my right hon. Friend the Minister has looked at very closely and will continue to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, any investment by Government must be linked to the long-term strengthening of the industry as part of an agreed overall strategy. To this end, my officials are in close touch with the National Pig Association and others.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what progress his Department has made in respect of state aid to restructure the UK pig industry; [113162]

  (2) what requests he has made to the EU Commission in respect of state aid for restructuring the United Kingdom pig sector; [113160]

  (3) what measures he is proposing to reduce the impact of the BSE-equivalent levy on UK pig farmers. [113161]

  Ms Quin
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 1 February, any investment by Government must be linked to long-term change in the structure of the industry. It must also be part of an agreed overall strategy; to this end, my officials are in discussion with the National Pig
  719W
  Association and others. Discussions on this topic are also taking place with the European Commission, including direct contacts between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Agriculture Commissioner.

  BSE Inquiry (Costs)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated public costs of the BSE Inquiry up to the date of expected reporting of the inquiry; of those costs, what has been spent during the inquiry(a) by the inquiry team and its staff and (b) within
  (i) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
  (ii) the Department of Health and (iii) other departments and in support of their current and ex-civil servants, (c) supporting current or previous external Government advisers and (d) supporting the relatives of people with vCJD. [112441]

  Ms Quin
  The estimated public cost of the BSE Inquiry, including the costs of liaison units and legal support for witnesses from the main departments involved, up to the date of expected reporting is about £27 million. This includes:(a) The BSE Inquiry, including reimbursement of direct costs incurred by relatives of people with vCJD attending the hearings: £16 million;
  (b)(i) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Liaison Unit, including support to current and former officials, former Ministers and current and previous external government advisers: £7.63 million;
  (ii) Department of Health Liaison Unit, including support to current and former officials and former Ministers: £2.73 million;
  (iii) Other administrations and departments sponsoring the Inquiry—liaison units including support to current and former officials and former Ministers: £0.5 million.
  (c) Costs of support for current or previous external government advisers cannot be fully separated out and are therefore included in (b) (i) above;
  (d) Reimbursement of direct costs incurred by relatives of people with vCJD attending the hearings: £70,000, included in (a) above.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total amount of public money spent to date in the BSE Inquiry on fees for lawyers not directly employed by the Civil Service; and of these how much has been spent(a) on fees for (i) the Inquiry Chair, (ii) the solicitor to the inquiry and (iii) the main counsel to the inquiry, (b) in support of external Government advisers,
  (c) in support of employees or ex-employees of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (d) in support of employees or ex-employees of the Department of Health. [112442]

  Ms Quin
  The total amount of public money spent to date on the BSE Inquiry for lawyers not directly employed by the Civil Service is about £9.1 million. Further costs are still being incurred.(a) The Chairman of the Inquiry and the solicitor to the Inquiry have been paid their normal salaries as public servants while involved in the Inquiry. The Counsel team to the Inquiry has so far cost around £1.7 million. It is not appropriate to provide an indication of fees for individual Counsel;
  (b) In support of external government advisers: £0.33 million;
  720W
  (c) In support of employees or ex-employees of MAFF: £4.95 million;
  (e) In support of employees or ex-employees of DH: £1.41 million

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the direct and opportunity costs met by(a) witnesses to the BSE inquiry and (b) their employers; and what level of reimbursement for such costs has been made from public funds. [112439]

  Ms Quin
  We are not in a position to estimate the direct and opportunity costs to witnesses or their employers of the Inquiry. Serving civil servants have participated in the Inquiry as part of their employment and relevant direct costs—travel and subsistence—are met from local budgets. Reimbursement from public funds of direct costs incurred by witnesses, who are no longer serving officials, in preparing and giving evidence to the Inquiry which have been paid by the Inquiry, MAFF, DH and other sponsoring departments, amounts to about £60,000.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to evaluate the relationship between the costs and outcome of the BSE Inquiry. [112438]

  Ms Quin
  Questions about the relationship between the costs and outcome of a public inquiry can only be addressed once the Report has been received by the Government and assessed by all the parties concerned.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of cattle passports issued in 1999 contained herd number errors; and if he will make a statement. [112429]

  Ms Quin
  Of the 3,026,837 cattle passports issued in 1999, 0.007 per cent. contained herd number errors.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of cattle passports needed to be corrected after their initial issue in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [112428]

  Ms Quin
  Of the 3,026,837 cattle passports issued in 1999, 5.44 per cent. needed to be corrected after their initial issue.

  Hop Producers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent advice he has received from the European Commission with regard to payments to hop producers under special temporary measures under Regulation 1098/98; and when he expects such payments to be made. [113504]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: We have received various advice from the Commission since the special temporary measures for hops were introduced in 1998. The Intervention Board Executive Agency, which administers the scheme in the UK, made payments to producer groups in respect of the 1999 harvest by end December last.

  Day-old Chicks
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his policy on the methods used for slaughtering day-old chicks; and if he will make a statement; [112638]

  (2) how many male day-old chicks were destroyed in the last year for which figures are available; what method was used for killing; and if he will take action to end the use of the present method and level of slaughtering. [112637]

  Mr. Morley
  The methods permitted for the killing of surplus chicks and embryos in hatchery waste are specified in EU Council Directive 93/119/EC and "the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter and Killing) Regulations 1995". The following methods are permitted in the UK: (a) the use of a mechanical apparatus producing immediate death; (b) exposure to gas mixtures; and (c) dislocation of the neck. The majority of surplus chicks are killed using one of the first two methods listed above, but no figures on the total numbers killed, or the method used, are available centrally.

  These methods were approved after careful consideration. The Farm Animal Welfare Council assessed the mechanical destruction method, and recommended its use in preference to 100 per cent. carbon dioxide. There are currently no plans to change the permitted methods for disposing of surplus chicks.

  The number of surplus male chicks disposed of annually is largely dependent on the demand for laying hens: being market-led, it is not a matter on which the Government would wish to legislate. However, research is continuing into the possibility of producing single sex eggs to help reduce the number of unwanted chicks.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 721W, on day-old chicks, if he will list each of the countries within and outside the EU from which day-old chicks were imported in 1999, and the numbers imported from each country. [113186]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The following table list the import of day-old chicks into the United Kingdom from countries within and outside the EU in 1999.

  1999

  Number of chicks imported

  EU Countries

  Austria

  9,270

  Belgium

  45,121

  Germany

  34,816,225

  Denmark

  411,000

  France

  4,633,625

  Republic of Ireland

  58,025,730

  Netherlands

  1,073,968

  99,014,939

  Non-EU Countries

  USA

  174,328

  Canada

  17,798

  Total

  192,126

  722W
  The total for imports from other member states has been revised and therefore varies from the figure given in my reply of 3 February. The figures given in the table are still provisional and subject to further validation.

  Genetically Modified Maize Products
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those members of the Food Advisory Committee whose participation was limited in its consideration of the labelling of genetically modified maize products placed on the market by Agrevo (T25), Monsanto (Mon 810), Novartis (Bt 11) and Pioneer (MON 809), indicating the manner in which it was limited. [113354]

  Ms Quin
  [Holding answer 6 March 2000]: No members were limited in their participation.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the(a) scientific information which the Food Advisory Committee considered before coming to its view in respect of the labelling of genetically modified maize products placed on the market by Agrevo (T25), Monsanto (Mon 810), Novartis (Bt 11) and Pioneer (MON 809), and (b) correspondence in respect thereof passing between the Food Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. [113356]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: (a) Summaries of the scientific information considered by the Food Advisory Committee are available in the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes Annual Report for 1996, which is lodged in the Library of the House.

  (b) I have arranged for these papers to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reduction in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency for fisheries work. [112554]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 27 October 1999, Official Report, column 922W.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the grant-in-aid from his Department for fisheries work by the Environment Agency for each of the last three years in(a) current prices and (b) constant prices. [112553]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Grant-in-aid paid by MAFF to the Environment Agency

  723W
  for salmon and freshwater fisheries work (all figures in £ million) are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Current

  (b) Constant

  1997–98

  7.4

  7.4

  (England and Wales)

  1998–99

  122.1

  121.6

  (England and Wales)

  1999–2000

  4.8

  4.6

  (England only)

  1 In 1998–1999 there was a temporary change in the rules whereby all revenue from licence fees was returned to Treasury but with an equivalent increase in grant-in-aid. The underlying figure for MAFF grant-in-aid is £7.9 million, which included a one-off additional payment of £0.5 million to assist with the enforcement of the salmon conservation byelaws.

  Tree Felling Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each of the last five years breaches of tree felling licences have been brought to the notice of the Forestry Commission; and what enforcement or remedial action has resulted. [113034]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission has investigated 13 breaches of felling licences in the last five years, as set out in the table.

  Year ending 31 March

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Number of breaches

  5

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Successful prosecution and restocking notice

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Successful prosecution only

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Unsuccessful prosecution

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warning letter sent

  2

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Advice given or no further action

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1 Year to date

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what tree felling licences have been granted in respect of Avon Heath Country Park; how many trees are affected; how many trees have been felled; and how many have been felled in breach of the licence; [113033]

  (2) what action the Forestry Commission is taking in response to reports that the RSPB is in breach of a tree felling licence granted in respect of Avon Heath Country Park in Dorset; and if he will make a statement. [113035]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission has granted one felling licence in respect of Avon Health Country Park. This allows the owner to fell 86,000 trees by selectively felling and thinning 78 hectares of woodland. The Commission is currently investigating reports that the RSPB has felled trees which were not included in the licence.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 19W, on peat compost, (a) what percentage of and (b) how much compost used in his Department's estate gardens is peat; when peat compost will be phased out by his Department's estates; and if he will make a statement. [113346]
  724W
  Mr. Morley
  Records are not kept centrally detailing the amount of peat (if any) and peat substitutes that are used on the Ministry's gardens. To find this information would be time consuming and expensive because many contractors, subcontractors and suppliers would have to be approached for their records. Having said that, the Ministry does not have a large acreage of gardens; rather, we have smaller areas of landscaping and flower-beds around buildings.

  As I said in my answer of 28 February, since 1993, the Ministry has had a policy that environmentally acceptable alternatives should be substituted for peat. We will, though, be issuing reminders shortly in line with our Greening Operations Strategy which was revised and reissued in June 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the new Argentine administration about the Falkland Islands. [113340]

  Mr. Battle
  We have established a good working relationship with the new Argentine Government. The Prime Minister has met President De la Rua twice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Rodriguez Giavarini. I attended the Argentine Presidential inauguration and the Secretary of State for Defence has met the Argentine President and Defence Minister.

  On these and other occasions both sides have reaffirmed their commitment to the Joint Statement of July 1999 and to continue our dialogue on issues of common interest.

  This does not affect our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands or our commitment to the Islanders' right to determine their own future.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka last visited(a) the northern area of Sri Lanka and (b) Jaffna; and what reports he has made of his visit. [113429]

  Mr. Hain
  The British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Ms Linda Duffield, last visited the north of Sri Lanka from 17–20 January when she visited Vavuniya, Mannar and Trincomalee. She reported on the difficulties faced by those displaced by the conflict and has discussed this with the Government of Sri Lanka. The High Commissioner will be visiting Jaffna from 21–24 March.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers in his Department have visited Sri Lanka since 1 May 1997. [113433]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 579W.
  725W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had within the European Union on the involvement of that organisation in the resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [113432]

  Mr. Hain
  The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is discussed frequently in EU forums.

  International Labour Organisation Convention
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have ratified the International Labour Office Convention C138; and if he will make a statement. [113434]

  Mr. Hain
  We are taking steps to ratify ILO Convention 138. After a period of consultation between Government Departments, legislative amendments, necessary before ratification can be carried out, are being drafted. We will ratify the Convention as soon as Parliamentary procedures are completed.

  Great Lakes Region
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the Great Lakes Region of UN Security Council Resolution 1291. [113425]

  Mr. Hain
  The adoption of Security Council Resolution 1291, providing for the establishment of a substantial UN observer force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is an important step forward. It is a clear demonstration of the Security Council's readiness to provide practical support to the Lusaka Agreement. It provides the framework for the UN and the international community to play a significant role in bringing peace to the Great Lakes region.

  Britain wants to see results. That is why we want the observer force to deploy quickly so that it can begin its work, which includes drawing up an action plan for the comprehensive disarmament, demobilisation, resettlement and reintegration (DDRR) of all armed groups listed in the Lusaka Agreement. A credible DDRR plan is vital to the success of Lusaka and to lasting peace in the region.

  And, as I made clear at January's special Security Council meeting, Britain is ready to consider a full UN peacekeeping force if the observer force deploys successfully, and the Lusaka signatories carry through their commitments.

  Burundi
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Burundian peace negotiations in Arusha. [113424]

  Mr. Hain
  The Arusha talks remain the key to lasting peace in Burundi. Nelson Mandela's arrival as Facilitator has increased the chances of a peace settlement. But many difficult problems remain and the situation on the ground is deteriorating.

  In discussions with President Buyoya and other Heads of State attending the Burundi Summit in Arusha, I reaffirmed Britain's strong support for Nelson Mandela's
  726W
  facilitation and the peace process. The presence of many international leaders in Arusha attests to the strong international support for the talks.

  We continue to urge all parties to tackle the difficult issues: a ceasefire, military reform, amnesties, and the transition to a broad based democratic government. We will continue to back the peace process.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place the report containing the Wallace recommendations on the constitution of St. Helena in the Library. [113593]

  Mr. Battle
  I have arranged for copies of Mr. Wallace's "Review of the Constitution of St. Helena", 1987, to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Zimbabwe of wide-scale incursions by squatters on to white-owned farms; what assessment he has made of the extent of Government involvement in these incursions; and if he will make a statement. [113579]

  Mr. Hain
  We have been following events closely, and have been concerned at the lack of action on the part of the police. The High Commissioner has spoken of our concern to a number of senior Cabinet Ministers. On 6 March I spoke to the Vice President who assured me that the Government were taking action to remove the trespassers from the farms.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to allow registered social landlords to verify new tenant claims for housing benefit. [112623]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to make it our policy to allow registered social landlords to verify evidence for Housing Benefit claims on behalf of the local authority.

  While landlords can assist their tenants by collecting the necessary evidence and forwarding it to the local authority, there is a potential conflict of interest in any landlord certifying evidence on behalf of a tenant in order that the tenant's rent may be paid by way of Housing Benefit.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to provide housing benefit to tenants of registered social landlords on the same basis as tenants of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [112622]

  Angela Eagle
  Cases involving Housing Benefit claims from local authority tenants are not subject to rent officer controls over the amount of Housing Benefit payable
  727W
  because local authority rents are subject to rules set by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In these cases, as landlords, local authorities provide Housing Benefit simply by rebating their tenants' rent accounts.

  Cases involving Housing Benefit claims from tenants of registered social landlords are not referred to rent officers unless it appears to the local authority that the level of rent charged is unreasonably high or the accommodation is over-large.

  Payments of Housing Benefit are made either directly to registered social landlords or to their tenants. We have no plans to empower registered social landlords to administer the Housing Benefit scheme in respect of their tenants.

  Savings Limit
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 172W, to the hon. Member for Colchester, what the level of the savings limit set at £3,000 in April 1998 would be now if it had been uprated since then in line with the retail prices index. [112993]

  Mr. Bayley
  If the lower capital limit of £3,000, set in 1988, in the income-related benefits had been uprated in line with the retail price index it would be £4,878 at April 2000.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the number of people entitled to winter fuel payments who have yet to receive them; [112947]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of appeals against (a) failure to award and (b) level of winter fuel payments that (i) his Department has received, (ii) were successful and (iii) are still outstanding. [112948]

  Numbers of people in families where one or more adults were in paid work and where the income is below half contemporary mean income, excluding the self-employed Before housing costs

  Million

  Year

  Total people

  Total Children

  Total people in lone parent families

  Children in lone parent families

  Total people in couple families

  Children in couple families

  FES

  1981

  1.1

  0.6

  0.1

  0.0

  1.0

  0.6

  1987

  1.5

  0.6

  0.1

  0.0

  1.1

  0.6

  1988–89

  1.9

  0.7

  0.1

  0.1

  1.3

  0.7

  1990–91

  2.3

  0.9

  0.3

  0.2

  1.5

  0.8

  1991–92

  2.4

  1.0

  0.3

  0.2

  1.6

  0.8

  1992–93

  2.3

  0.9

  0.2

  0.1

  1.5

  0.8

  1993–94

  2.1

  0.9

  0.2

  0.1

  1.4

  0.8

  1994–95

  2.3

  0.9

  0.3

  0.2

  1.5

  0.8

  1995–96

  2.4

  1.0

  0.3

  0.2

  1.5

  0.8

  FRS

  1994–95

  1.9

  0.7

  0.1

  0.1

  1.2

  0.7

  1995–96

  1.8

  0.7

  0.1

  0.1

  1.2

  0.6

  1996–97

  2.6

  1.1

  0.2

  0.2

  1.7

  0.9

  1997–98

  2.8

  1.1

  0.3

  0.2

  1.8

  0.9

  728W
  Angela Eagle
  At the end of January 2000, it was estimated that around 99 per cent. of customers who qualified under the existing arrangements had received their full entitlement to a Winter Fuel Payment. The remaining 1 per cent. were those customers whose girocheques had been returned, uncollected, from the Post Office or who queried the amount paid.

  Following the European Court's ruling in the Taylor case, we have announced our intention to extend help through the Winter Fuel Payment scheme to men as well as women aged 60 and over. At the same time we also announced our intention to make backdated payments to all people who will be included within the scope of the scheme in respect of the previous three winters (i.e. 1997–88, 1998–99, 1999–2000).

  We are carefully considering what arrangements need to be made in order to issue payments accurately and securely to customers not already within the scope of the existing scheme. An announcement will be made as soon as possible once plans are further advanced.

  A total of 43,000 customers have queried the level of their entitlement to a Winter Fuel Payment. Each claim was reconsidered in line with the Decision-Making and Appeal rules, resulting in the issue of a "top-up" payment to some customers. Where the original decision was not changed by the reconsideration, an appeal was sent to the Appeals Service. The total number of appeals to date is 255, but information on whether these have been successful or are still outstanding could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Low-income Households
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 333W, on low-income households, if he will publish tables as in the answer which show the position for households which do not include a self-employed adult. [112808]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is available for the years shown in the tables. The latest information relates to the financial year 1997–98.
  729W

  Numbers of people in families where one or more adults were in paid work and where the income is below half contemporary mean income After housing costs

  Million

  Year

  Total people

  Total Children

  Total people in lone parent families

  Children in lone parent families

  Total people in couple families

  Children in couple families

  FES

  1981

  1.6

  0.8

  0.1

  0.1

  1.4

  0.8

  1987

  2.1

  0.8

  0.1

  0.0

  1.5

  0.8

  1988–89

  2.3

  0.9

  0.2

  0.1

  1.6

  0.8

  1990–91

  3.1

  1.2

  0.3

  0.2

  2.1

  1.0

  1991–92

  3.2

  1.3

  0.3

  0.2

  2.1

  1.1

  1992–93

  3.1

  1.2

  0.3

  0.2

  1.9

  1.0

  1993–94

  3.0

  1.2

  0.4

  0.2

  1.9

  1.0

  1994–95

  3.2

  1.3

  0.5

  0.3

  1.9

  1.0

  1995–96

  3.4

  1.4

  0.5

  0.3

  2.0

  1.0

  FRS

  1994–95

  2.6

  1.0

  0.3

  0.2

  1.7

  0.9

  1995–96

  2.8

  1.1

  0.3

  0.2

  1.7

  0.9

  1996–97

  3.6

  1.4

  0.4

  0.2

  2.2

  1.2

  1997–98

  3.8

  1.5

  0.5

  0.3

  2.3

  1.2

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs in line with HBAI conventions. All the estimates in the table relate to families with an adult in paid work rather than households with an adult in paid work, but exclude households where there is a full-time self-employed adult.

  2. The column headed "Total people in couple families" does not include couples without children.

  3. The estimates based on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) are for the United Kingdom. For 1988–89 and subsequent years, two years' data have been combined to improve the robustness of the results. For 1994–95 onwards, estimates are available from the larger Family Resources Survey (FRS) and relate to single financial years. The FRS results are for Great Britain.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of disablement awards made in the UK to sufferers of asbestos-related diseases over the last five years for which figures are available broken down by(a) region and (b) occupation. [113329]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost, in the latest financial year for which figures are available, of the provision of income support for persons from abroad. [113073]

  Mr. Bayley
  The estimated cost for 1998–99 of Income Support paid to people from abroad was approximately £150 million.

  Notes:
  1. Estimated annual expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest five million pounds.
  2. Estimates may include a number of non-persons from abroad who receive Urgent Case Payments for other reasons.
  3. Annual expenditure figures for Income Support have been based on an average of four quarters for the financial year, using numbers of cases and average weekly amounts.
  4. Estimate does not include costs of administering the benefit.

  Source:
  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1998 to February 1999.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in Wales at the latest available date received assistance under the New Deal for Lone Parents. [113072]

  Angela Eagle
  Since the start of the national NDLP programme in October 1998, 6,450 Lone Parents in Wales have agreed to participate in the programme. They have all been offered help and advice by their own NDLP Adviser, 2,410 have found a job, 590 have entered training or education. Advisers have also provided assistance in finding suitable child care; and claiming in-work benefits.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents have received letters inviting them to join the New Deal for Lone Parents. [113584]

  Angela Eagle
  454,920 initial letters have been issued telling lone parents about the voluntary New Deal service during the National Programme (October 1998—December 1999). In addition 50,612 initial letters were issued during phase 1 and 2 (July 1997—October 1998). The letters are part of the overall strategy (including advertising locally and nationally, using TV, Radio and the Press) to make lone parents aware of the service available to them through New Deal for Lone Parents.

  Family Credit (Fraud)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of fraudulent claims for Family Credit in the last five years. [113296]
  731W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The number of cases of Family Credit fraud detected for the last three years

  Year

  Number of fraud cases detected

  1996–97

  3,366

  1997–98

  5,173

  1998–99

  10,860

  Note:

  We do not have statistically valid figures for the level of Family Credit fraud

  Mortgages
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish, for the last two calendar years(a) the reports furnished to his Department on the

  Changes in standard interest rates 1998–2000

  Date notification received from ONS confirming interest rate change

  Date amending regulations laid before parliament

  Date the regulations came into force

  Interest rate Percentage

  15 April 1998

  1 May 1998

  24 May 1998

  8.34

  9 November 1998

  27 November 1998

  20 December 1998

  8.65

  8 January 1999

  28 January 1999

  21 February 1999

  8.24

  8 April 1999

  24 February 1999

  21 March 1999

  7.75

  5 March 1999

  25 March 1999

  18 April 1999

  7.39

  9 April 1999

  16 April 1999

  9 May 1999

  7.08

  11 May 1999

  26 May 1999

  20 June 1999

  6.66

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Festival (Scotland)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Millennium Festival in Scotland. [111092]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Festival in Scotland has been made possible by the Lottery distributing bodies including the Millennium Commission and the New Millennium Experience Company. They have come together to make available a fund of up to £11 million for community groups, large and small, to apply for funding. The variety of events happening in Scotland throughout the Year 2000 is considerable, from the first ever Millennium Commonwealth Youth Games in Edinburgh to a programme entitled "The Rights of Passage" in Dumfries and Galloway celebrating the notable dates in our life. The Unst Millennium Festival will be held during July 2000 and a number of projects are also happening in the Western Isles, Aberdeenshire and in Argyll and Bute—quite literally throughout the whole of Scotland.

  Smaller awards are still available (up to £5,000) through the Awards for All scheme called "Awards for All … celebrating the Scottish Millennium Festival" up until the end of April 2000 and small community groups are still applying for this money. The New Millennium Experience Company has also established a website www.millenniumscotland.co.uk as part of the UK Festival website (www.festival2000.co.uk) and in the Scottish section alone there are already over 400 events which will happen in the Year 2000— a testimony to the work of the distributors and the New Millennium Experience
  732W
  mortgage interest rates charged by the United Kingdom's top 20 lenders, (b) the dates upon which the average of these rates changed by one quarter of one per cent. or more and (c) the date and amount of any changes he made to his Department's own standard interest rate. [113364]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Information on changes in the interest rates charged by different lending institutions is published monthly in Financial Statistics (Table 7.1L) which is compiled by the Office for National Statistics and published by The Stationary Office. The standard interest rate that is applied to the assessment of mortgage interest to be paid with Income Support and income based Jobseekers Allowance, is based on the average of Building Society rates. The Office for National Statistics notifies the Department each month of any movement in these rates. If there is a change of one quarter of a percentage point, immediate action is taken to amend the legislation to reflect this change in the standard interest rate.

  Company in ensuring that everyone Scotland has an opportunity to benefit from the celebration of the Millennium.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the subsequent beneficiaries of the £32 million to be repaid by the New Millennium Experience Company to the Millennium Commission have been advised of these forthcoming benefits. [113026]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the right hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence between NMEC and the Millennium Commission relating to the approval of further moneys from the Commission to NMEC on 5 February. [112833]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek an efficient not-for-profit
  733W
  operator for the National Lottery as set out in his oral statement of 4 February 1998, Official Report, column 1052. [113171]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We have indeed maintained the policy of seeking (and welcoming) any bids from efficient not-for-profit operators; but the selection of the next operator is of course a matter for the National Lottery Commission. The Government's objective is to maximise the returns to good causes and remove unnecessary profit margins. These aims will best be achieved through a robust competition. This has taken place and it is now up to the National Lottery Commission to evaluate the bids.

  English Heritage Grant offers

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Historic Buildings and Monuments

  12.0

  11.6

  9.9

  10.8

  14.3

  Churches

  11.0

  9.9

  10.0

  12.2

  10.0

  Cathedrals

  4.3

  3.0

  2.0

  2.6

  3.0

  Conservation Areas

  13.5

  12.4

  9.3

  7.3

  6.3

  Archaeology

  5.7

  5.4

  5.4

  4.7

  4.8

  Gardens grants (other)

  0.4

  0

  0.1

  0.2

  0

  Total

  46.9

  42.3

  36.7

  37.8

  38.4

  1 Budget

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress in negotiations with museums and galleries on the provision of free entry for adults. [113441]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Funds have been made available to permit free access for the over 60s, from April 2000, to the currently charging national museums funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We are continuing to assess the most effective ways of extending access in 2001. However, decisions will ultimately be taken by the Trustees.

  Museum of the Moving Image
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the British Film Institute has identified a permanent site for the re-location of the Museum of the Moving Image. [113443]

  Janet Anderson
  The recently announced plans for the South Bank Centre include a potential new home for the Museum of the Moving Image. This will allow for an improved and expanded Museum, to provide an interesting and educational showcase for the BFI's collections.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the British Film Institute's Museum of the Moving Image will re-open. [113439]

  Janet Anderson
  Work on the new BFI Film Centre, which will incorporate the museum of the Moving Image, is scheduled in Phase One of the South Bank master plan, completion of which will depend on the planning process. In the meantime, the BFI is planning a touring exhibition which will greatly increase access to the collection.

  English Heritage
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those organisations that have received Grants from English Heritage together with the amounts or the purpose of the Grants, in the last five years. [113172]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A consolidated list of Grants by category offered by English Heritage over the last five years is in the table, including a budget figure for the financial year 1999–2000. A full list of repair grants offered by English Heritage to buildings and monuments of outstanding national importance is published annually by English Heritage, and is available on request.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions his Department has had with the British Film Institute on the provision of a new permanent location for the Museum of the Moving Image. [113442]

  Janet Anderson
  The decision to seek a new permanent location for the Museum was taken by the Board of the BFI, and my Department has been kept closely in touch. The BFI proposes that the Museum will be housed at a bigger and better location within the newly developed South Bank. In the meantime, the BFI is planning a UK wide touring exhibition which will greatly increase access to the collection.

  Millennium Commission (Projects)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many projects supported by the Millennium Commission(a) are fully operational, (b) will be operational during the summer and (c) will not be completed by 1 July. [113438]

  Janet Anderson
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reply in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of his reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Trafalgar Square (Pedestrianisation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department has taken to identify potential sources of funding for proposals for the partial pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square. [113445]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The partial pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square forms part of the wider "World Squares for All" project, for which the new Mayor for London will take over lead responsibility. Substantial financial support
  735W
  could come from the Mayor. Additional funding could be sought from the Heritage Lottery Fund and private sector sponsorship.

  National Lottery Grants (Tewkesbury)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will investigate the reasons for the level of National Lottery grants given to organisations in Tewkesbury. [113185]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Tewkesbury has received a lower level of Lottery grants than the UK average. The Government wish to see a more equitable distribution of National Lottery funds across the UK. We have introduced a number of changes through the National Lottery Act 1998 and revised Policy Directions to the distributors which have already begun to improve the geographical spread of funding. My Department, jointly with Lottery distributors, has commissioned research aimed at investigating the reasons for the low take up of Lottery grants in certain areas. While the research concentrates particularly on former coalfield areas, we expect that it will also provide a number of valuable lessons about low take up in other areas, such as Tewkesbury. The first phase of this research has been published and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House; the second phase will be published shortly.

  Free TV Licences
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates he has made of the number of families in the Elmet constituency who will benefit from the introduction of free TV licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [113415]

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate for each Scottish and Welsh constituency the number of households which will be entitled to a free TV licence(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of total households. [112841]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 350W.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates he has made of the number of new households which will become entitled to a free TV licence in each of the next 15 years. [112842]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]We estimate that there are currently over three million households which include a person aged 75 or over and will consequently benefit from the introduction of free television licences for the over-75s. Estimates for future years are not available.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Department of Social Security regarding the possibility of making a payment of the equivalent value to a TV licence to those aged over 75 years through the benefits system. [112850]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Film Funding
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list all National Lottery-funded films to date, together with in each case(a) the value of lottery support, (b) the total production cost, (c) the date of lottery grant, (d) the planned or actual release date, (e) the number of screens on which they were released, (f) box office receipts and (g) repayment of lottery funds made. [113511]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I have today placed the information requested in respect of Lottery awards made in England in the Library of the House. I will write to the hon. Member in due course about awards made by the Arts Council of Wales and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland.

  In Scotland film policy is a devolved matter and is now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when regulations will be laid to bring into effect the television licence fee increases announced on 21 February and due to come into force on 1 April. [113952]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 1241, I announced that, from 1 April 1999, the fee for a colour television licence would increase from £101 to £104; the black and white licence fee will rise from £33.50 to £34.50. I have today laid before the House the regulations necessary to bring these fees into force.

  The regulations also contain provisions in consequence of our proposal to introduce free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November this year. Anyone aged 75 or over who needs to renew their licence between April and October will be able to purchase a short term licence at a reduced rate, based on the number of months covered. Similar provisions are included for people who, after 1 November, need to renew a licence less than 12 months before their 75th birthday.

  We have also included in the regulations a provision to remove an anomaly of the existing concessionary licence scheme, for people in residential homes and sheltered accommodation. The effect of this is to include within the scope of the provision retired persons, whether male or female, aged 60 years or more.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Foundation Schools
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many foundation schools are within each of the education authorities identified as failing by the Schools Inspectorate. [112649]
  737W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is no specific overall category of failure in inspection reports published by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) on the performance of local education authorities.

  Funding Schemes
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding

  Total cost £000

  Internal cost £000

  Percentage

  Objective 1

  Ensuring that all young people reach 16 with the skills, attitudes and personal qualities that will give them a secure foundation for lifelong learning, work and citizenship in a rapidly changing world

  1,701,020

  82,930

  4.88

  Objective 2

  Developing in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning, so as to enhance their lives, improve their employability in a changing labour market and create the skills that our economy and employers need

  10,172,042

  90,776

  0.89

  Objective 3

  To help people without a job into work

  1,704,859

  960,435

  56.34

  Teachers Pension Scheme

  11,484,230

  0

  0

  1 Net cost

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision for training teachers in IT is being made from the New Opportunities Fund. [112977]

  Mr. Wills
  The New Opportunities Fund is making available £230 million to support the training of serving teachers and school library staff in the maintained sector in the effective use of information and communication technology. The training is available to all teachers in maintained schools.

  Selection Ballot (Trafford)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide(a) the full list of schools and (b) the total number of eligible parents for each school which has been used to set the petition threshold in connection with a parental ballot on selection in Trafford. [113025]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Grammar school petition and ballot: threshold for 1999–2000

  Number of school

  Name of eligible parents

  Abbotsford Preparatory

  197

  All Saints RC Primary

  301

  Altrincham C E Primary

  380

  Altrincham Grammar for Boys

  1,302

  Altrincham Grammar for Girls

  1,484

  Altrincham Preparatory

  574

  Ashton on Mersey

  1,691

  Barton Clough Primary

  299

  Blessed Thomas Holford Catholic

  1,153

  Bollin Primary

  297

  Bowden CE Primary

  531

  Bowden Preparatory

  394

  Brentwood School

  92

  738W
  schemes administered by his Department, indicating the total funds of each scheme and the administration costs of each scheme as a percentage of the total funds. [112492]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: Total cost of departmental objectives (including the teachers pensions scheme) and the percentage that relates to internal costs, prepared on a resource basis for 1998–99, are as follows:

  Grammar school petition and ballot: threshold for 1999–2000

  Number of school

  Name of eligible parents

  Broadheath Primary

  322

  Broadoak High

  550

  Brooklands Primary

  694

  Broomwood Primary

  190

  Cherry Manor

  245

  Christ the King

  46

  Cloverlea Primary

  335

  Culcetch Hall

  326

  Davyhulme Infant

  379

  Davyhulme Junior

  279

  Delamere

  102

  Egerton High

  39

  Elmridge Primary

  299

  English Martyrs RC Primary

  191

  Firs Primary

  236

  Flixton High

  1,562

  Flixton Infant

  378

  Flixton Junior

  471

  Forest Park

  189

  Forest

  253

  Gorse Hill Primary

  414

  Green Lane High

  1,016

  Hale Preparatory

  265

  Heyes Lane Infant

  525

  Heyes Lane Junior

  624

  Highfield Primary

  421

  Holy Family RC Primary

  257

  Intermediate Education

  41

  Jeff Joseph Sale Moor Tech College

  1,419

  King's Road Primary

  456

  Kingway Primary

  250

  Lime Tree Primary

  131

  Longford Park

  73

  Loreto Convent Preparatory/Grammar

  307

  Loreto Grammar

  1,085

  Lostock Community

  1,282

  Manor High

  227

  Moorlands Junior

  412

  Moss Park Infant

  279

  Moss Park Junior

  405

  739W

  Grammar school petition and ballot: threshold for 1999–2000

  Number of school

  Name of eligible parents

  Moss View Primary

  180

  Navigation Primary

  496

  North Cestrian Grammar

  484

  Oakwood Primary

  155

  Old Trafford Community

  257

  Oldfield Brow Primary

  121

  Ortonbrook Primary

  118

  Our Lady of Lourdes RC Primary

  195

  Our Lady of Rosary RC Primary

  236

  Park Road Primary (M33)

  279

  Park Road Primary (WAI4)

  394

  Partington Primary

  348

  Pictor

  105

  Sale Grammar

  1,609

  Seymour Park Primary

  646

  Southfields

  108

  Springfield Primary

  594

  St. Alphonsus RC Primary

  215

  St. Ambrose College

  1,295

  St. Ambrose Preparatory

  432

  St. Anne's CE Primary

  277

  St. Ann's RC Infants

  307

  St. Ann's RC Junior

  325

  St. Anthony's RC High

  608

  St. Bede's College

  585

  St. Hilda's CE Primary

  363

  St. Hugh of Lincoln RC Primary

  361

  St. Hugh's RC Primary

  700

  St. Joseph's RC Primary

  447

  St. Margaret Ward RC Primary

  198

  St. Mary's CE Primary (M33)

  339

  St. Mary's CE Primary (M41)

  262

  St. Matthew's CE Primary

  233

  St. Michael's CE Primary

  331

  St. Monica's RC Primary

  424

  St. Theresa's RC Primary

  257

  St. Vincent's Infant

  328

  St. Vincent's RC Junior

  336

  Stamford Park Infant

  410

  Stamford Park Junior

  445

  Stretford Grammar

  1,100

  Stretford High

  784

  Templemoor Infant

  292

  Tyntesfield Primary

  498

  Urmston Grammar

  1,011

  Urmston Infant

  400

  Urmston Junior

  542

  Victoria Park Infant

  301

  Victoria Park Junior

  324

  Well Green Primary

  314

  Well Acre High

  1,316

  Well Acre Infant

  215

  Well Acre Junior

  280

  Wellfield Infant

  372

  Wellfield Junior

  406

  Wellington

  1,637

  Willows Primary

  322

  Woodheys Primary

  436

  Woodhouse Primary

  316

  Woodsend Primary

  176

  Worthington Primary

  406

  The list of parent eligible to vote is provided by the schools themselves and includes some duplication where parents have children attending different feeder schools. After entering all the names onto a single computer database the Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. remove names entered more than once. The total number of eligible parents from the "cleared" database was 42,590 which resulted in a petition threshold of 8,518.

  GCE and GCSE
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each GCE and GCSE awarding body for each of the last three years, the total number of requests from candidates for(a) re-marks and (b) re-marks with reports, together with the total number of appeals against decisions lodged by individual examination centres. [112036]

  Mr. Wicks
  Following our 1998 review of the qualifications appeals system we introduced for the first time arrangements for the collection and publication of data on the number of requests for inquiries on results, including re-marks, and appeals. The new arrangements were introduced from summer 1999 and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is currently finalising the first set of statistics which will be published later this month.

  Nautical Studies
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the contribution of the GCSE course in nautical studies in relation to the understanding and promotion of best practice in sea safety. [113544]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have not made an assessment of how the GCSE in nautical studies may contribute to sea safety.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the annual cost of administering the GCSE examination in nautical studies. [113545]

  Mr. Wicks
  The GCSE in nautical studies is offered by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance. The total costs incurred by the awarding body for offering the syllabus in 1999 were £12,282.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students took the GCSE examination in nautical studies in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98; and how many he estimates will take it in 1999–2000. [113547]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of candidates entered for the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance's GCSE in nautical studies was 144 in 1995–96, 118 in 1996–97, and 105 in 1997–98. An estimate for the 1999–2000 entry will not be available from the awarding body until later in the month.

  Unemployment (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the change in the number of unemployed individuals from ethnic minorities between 1997 and the latest date for which figures are available. [113523]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  741W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 8 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on unemployed individuals from ethnic minorities.
  Latest available non-seasonally adjusted estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) show that in the autumn (September to November) quarter of 1999 the number of ILO unemployed from all ethnic minorities in the UK was 203,000. This compares to 266,000 in the same period in 1997; a reduction of 23,000.
  742W
  People interviewed in the LFS are asked to classify their own ethnic origin. The figures given represent people who did not classify themselves as being of White origin.
  The measure of unemployment derived from the LFS is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It counts as unemployed people who are a) without a paid job, b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

HEALTH

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to provide paediatric intensive care facilities in the Royal Bolton Hospital; [104287]

  (2) what plans he has to provide more paediatric intensive care facilities in the Greater Manchester Clinical Directorate. [104283]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no plans to provide paediatric intensive care facilities at the Royal Bolton Hospital as it would not be appropriate for paediatric intensive care to take place in a District General Hospital setting which would not have either the required skills or bed numbers.

  Any perceived need to increase the number of paediatric intensive care beds in the Greater Manchester area will be examined by the North West Specialist Group in consultation with the Paediatric Intensive Care Commissioning Group and the relevant lead health authority. In the event of a subsequent review then the following areas would be examined as part of that process; number of admissions, number of refusals, average length of stay and occupancy rates in relation to the facilities currently available and level of dependency of the child.

  Childhood Cancer
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been reported this year and in the past three years of childhood cancer being caused by electric fields; and if he will make a statement. [108590]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is not possible to attribute any individual cases of childhood cancer to electric fields. The United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study, published in December 1999 found no evidence to link childhood cancer with exposure to magnetic fields from the electricity supply. Their report on electric fields is expected later this year. In 1992, the National Radiological Protection Board's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation examined in detail the evidence for an association between the incidence of childhood cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields. They concluded that there was no clear evidence of an adverse health effect at the levels of electromagnetic field to which the public is normally exposed. A further review which will consider electric and magnetic fields independently, will be published later this year.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the antibiotics to which marker genes used in the production of genetically modified crops convey resistance and the medical uses of those antibiotics. [108628]

  Yvette Cooper
  Marker genes conveying resistance to a number of antibiotics have been used in the production of genetically modified crops around the world. Those used in the development of Genetically Modified (GM) crops that have been submitted for evaluation in the UK,744W
  either for food use or for release to the environment (either marketing consent or for experimental releases), are listed in the table:

  Gene

  Antibiotic

  Kanr (nptll or neo)

  Amnioglycoside antibiotics including kanamycin, and neomycin

  Strepr/specr (or aad)

  Streptomycin and spectinomycin

  Ampr (or bla)

  Narrow spectrum βlactam antibiotics such as ampicillin and amoxycillin

  Tc

  Tetracycline

  Nptlll

  Amikacin

  Hpt

  Hygromycin

  In some instances marker genes have been used in the early laboratory stages of the development of GM crops but are not present in the final crop plants. In addition, all foods derived from GM crops that are currently available in Europe are highly processed before consumption and the genetic material is no longer viable.

  The medical uses of these antibiotics are as follows:

  Antibiotic

  Medical uses

  Kanamycin, neomycin (aminoglycosides)

  Kanamycin is not commonly used now. Neomycin is used locally for ear or skin infections and may be used to reduce microbial load prior to bowel surgery. It is not used parenterally

  Streptomycin, spectinomycin

  Streptomycin and spectinomycin are of value in the treatment of serious infections such as TB, and for treating gentamicin-resistant enterococcal endocarditis. They are also used in the treatment of gonorrhoea

  Ampicillin, amoxycillin

  βlactam antibiotics are widely used to treat all forms of infection

  Tetracyclines

  Group of broad-spectrum antibiotics used to treat acne, respiratory infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Also used in treatment of infections in penicillin-allergic patients

  Amikacin

  Another aminoglycoside used to treat serious Gram-negative infections, especially those caused by organisms resistant to gentamicin (the aminoglycoside of choice)

  Hygromycin

  Veterinary antibiotic

  The safety of any genetically modified food is carefully and rigorously assessed before it can be marketed in the United Kingdom. This evaluation will include an assessment of any potential adverse effects on health of the novel food, including the health implications of any antibiotic resistance markers that may be present in the food, taking a precautionary approach.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to advise health authorities against the installation in hospitals of air conditioning and refrigerant systems which contain substances known to contribute significantly to global warming. [109331]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is the Department's policy to achieve best environmental practice and it is committed to the efficient use of energy and resources. This includes taking action to reduce/minimise pollution or the risk of pollution, including ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases.
  745W
  While formulating the Strategy for 'Greening' the National Health Service, NHS Estates (an executive agency of the Department) will address the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming, alongside other environmental factors, such as waste prevention and water conservation.

  Worcestershire Hospitals
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) change of use and (b) additional facilities are planned for the Newtown Hospital site in Worcestershire. [109826]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Newtown Hospital site will be retained for the delivery of mental health services by the newly created Worcester Community and Mental Health National Health Service Trust, which comes into effect from 1 April 2000. The site will also provide some acute services that support the new Worcestershire Acute Hospital as set out in the approved Full Business Case for a New Hospital in Worcester.

  However, I understand options are currently being explored around the suitable use of the main building on the Newtown site.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new district general hospital at Worcester will be fully operational. [109827]

  Yvette Cooper
  The new £91 million Worcestershire Acute Hospital is due for completion in January 2002 and will be fully operational by the spring of 2002.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what agreement has been reached between Shropshire and Worcestershire health authorities on hospital provision following the re-organisation of hospital services in Kidderminster. [109823]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are mindful of Worcestershire health authority's responsibilities to ensure continuity and equity of access to services to neighbouring health authorities like Shropshire.

  Shropshire health authority was consulted on the proposals outlined in "Investing In Excellence" and informed of Ministers' decisions to approve the service changes and the Worcestershire Trust mergers. As soon as the clinical working group's advice on the timing of inpatient service moves from Kidderminster Hospital has been received, and a firm decision made, the two health authorities and the new Trusts will obviously discuss in full the issues for hospital services provision.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) psychiatry, (b) orthopaedics, (c) trauma, (d) gynaecology, (e) urology, (f) medicine, (g) vascular surgery and (h) general surgery services will cease to be provided at Kidderminster Hospital. [109825]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no firm timescales at present regarding the movement of services from Kidderminster Hospital. Twelve clinical working groups, comprised of consultants from all three acute hospitals in Worcestershire and other healthcare professionals, have been set up to look at how and when it would be appropriate to implement the changes to inpatient services at Kidderminster as outlined in the "Investing In Excellence" strategy.
  746W
  The groups will report back to the new shadow board of the Worcestershire Acute Trust by the end of March 2000. Decisions will then be taken on timescales, following which a comprehensive public information campaign will be implemented across the county.

  Kidderminster residents will still have access to 80 per cent. of the healthcare provided at Kidderminster Hospital, including outpatient clinics, day case surgery and rehabilitation and to comprehensive primary care services.

  Cancer
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures showing the composite index for early detection of cancer in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure. [109748]

  Yvette Cooper
  The composite index for early detection of cancer consists of the combined coverage figures for the eligible populations for the National Health Service breast screening programme and the NHS cervical screening programme. For the purposes of this answer we have broken down the figures, and the information requested is in the table:

  Percentage

  Breast screening

  Cervical screening

  Coverage at 31 March 1998

  England

  63.9

  85.3

  East and North Hertfordshire

  66.2

  86.6

  West Hertfordshire

  69.3

  86.5

  Buckinghamshire

  77.3

  89.2

  Hillingdon

  61.2

  85.3

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  66.0

  89.4

  South Essex

  65.7

  83.9

  Berkshire

  71.2

  83.2

  Coverage at 31 March 1999

  England

  1—

  84.0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  1—

  84.1

  West Hertfordshire

  1—

  85.5

  Buckinghamshire

  1—

  87.7

  Hillingdon

  1—

  83.3

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  i—

  87.6

  South Essex

  1—

  83.1

  Berkshire

  1—

  82.4

  Breast screening figures at 31 March 1999 not yet available

  Note:

  Health authorities defined as 'prospering areas: growth areas' according to the Jarman Under Privileged Areas Score.

  Source:

  Annual Return KC53 and KC63

  At 31 March 1998, the prospering areas: growth areas Health Authority with the highest coverage of breast screening was Buckinghamshire with 77.3 per cent., and the lowest was Hillingdon with 61.2 per cent. For cervical cancer at the same point highest coverage was Cambridge and Huntingdon with 89.4 per cent. The lowest was South Essex with 83.9 per cent.

  At 31 March 1999, the prospering areas: growth areas the health authority with the highest coverage of cervical screening was Buckinghamshire with 87.7 per cent. The lowest was Berkshire with 82.4 per cent.
  747W
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures showing the composite index for five year survival rates for breast and cervical cancer in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure. [109755]

  Yvette Cooper
  The 1997–98 figures for the cancer survival rates indicator were published in "Quality and Performance in the NHS: High Level Performance Indicators" in June 1999, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1998–99 will be published later this year.

  Doctors (Criminal Records)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the General Medical Council is required to notify doctors' criminal records to him; [109943]

  (2) how many doctors currently registered to practise have criminal records. [109942]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. The General Medical Council is not able to provide this information as not all convictions are reported to them, for example minor driving offences. However, doctors working in the National Health Service are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and when applying for National Health Service posts are expected to declare all previous or pending prosecutions or convictions, including those considered "spent" under the Act.

  We are taking action to strengthen existing recruitment and selection procedures. In guidance to be issued shortly, NHS employers will be required to include on the application form a declaration by the applicant of any disciplinary or other action taken against them or anticipated by the police, or by any overseas licensing or regulatory body.

  Changes to the regulations governing general practice will require doctors working in general practice, including doctors who work as locums or assistants, to make similar declarations.

  Once the General Medical Council has been made aware of a conviction, normally by the police, the case is considered through the conduct procedures, which may result in sanctions that affect the doctor's registration.

  Influenza Immunisation
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 710W, on influenza immunisation for healthcare workers, which National Health Service trusts included immunising healthcare staff as part of their planning for this winter; and what proportion of healthcare staff in each trust were immunised against influenza. [110183]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Advertising Budget
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110256]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: The Department's budget for communications—including campaigns such as the tobacco education strategy—in 1999–2000 is £31 million. There is no separate budget for advertising. No information is available at present on the budget for the year 2000–01.

  Post-natal Clinics
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve access to post-natal clinics for people in rural areas. [110778]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government's strategy for National Health Service maternity services, of which post-natal care is an integral part, is the provision of accessible, responsive user-focused services that offer greater choice, continuity of care and control to women.

  It is, however, for local health authorities and NHS trusts to develop post-natal service provision that best meets the needs of local people in light of competing priorities, available resources and evidence of effectiveness.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110685]

  Yvette Cooper
  As at 1 April 1999, 14 members of the senior civil service in the Department were from an ethnic minority background (3.8 per cent. of staff with ethnicity recorded). Of these, there were five women and nine men.

  Plants (Wellington and Skipton Houses)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the contract for the provision of plants in Wellington House and Skipton House is managed; and what plans he has to change the contractual arrangement. [110947]

  Yvette Cooper
  The provision and maintenance of plants forms part of the Cleaning Contract for all of the Department's central London buildings, which is managed on behalf of the Department by a Facilities Management Company. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the provision of plants in Wellington House and Skipton House was in 1999; and what the budgeted cost for 2000 is. [110948]

  Yvette Cooper
  The cost of the provision and maintenance of internal and external plants is included as part of the overall contract cost for the provision of cleaning services to the Department's central London buildings. It is not budgeted for separately. However, our best estimate is an annual cost to the Department of about £4,000 for Wellington House and £2,000 for Skipton House.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to phase out the use of peat compost in gardens(a) owned and (b) tended by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [110724]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is no record of the Department having purchased peat. However, should the need arise the Department would propose to substitute the use of all slow renewables with organic wastes such as coir, manure, leaf mould or bark chippings.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the electricity used by his Department is generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [111038]

  Contractor

  Name of research unit

  Current contract start and end dates

  Date of most recent review

  University of Kent

  Personal Social Services Research Unit

  April 1996-March 2001

  February 1999

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  Personal Social Services Research Unit

  January 1996-December 2000

  February 1999

  University of Manchester

  Personal Social Services Research Unit

  April 1996-March 2001

  February 1999

  Research Unit

  National Institute for Social Work Research Unit

  January 1996-December 2000

  October 1998

  University of York

  Social Policy Research Unit

  January 1996-December 2000

  May 1999

  University of Bristol

  Dartington Social Research Unit

  January 1996-December 2000

  September 1998

  University of London

  Thomas Coram Research Unit

  January 1996-December 2000

  February 1999

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list, in cash terms and at constant prices, his Department's total spending on research and development in each of the last five years and the projected expenditure in each of the next five years; [110944]

  (2) if he will list in cash terms and at constant prices, the spending on his Department's policy research programme in each of the last five years and the projected expenditure in each of the next five years. [110945]

  Yvette Cooper
  The expenditure in cash terms at constant prices (1999–2000) for the policy research programme and National Health Service research and development levy over the last five years are shown in the table. Expenditure in the next five years is expected to continue at a similar level.

  £ million

  Policy Research Programme

  NHS R&D Levy

  Total

  1994–95

  21.16

  1—

  1—

  1995–96

  21.86

  1—

  1—

  1996–97

  26.25

  398

  424.25

  1997–98

  24.81

  403.5

  428.31

  1998–99

  26.70

  417.6

  444.3

  1999–2000

  230.90

  2433.6

  2464.5

  1 The NHS research and development levy was first created in April 1996 and figures for NHS research and development prior to this are not available on the same basis.

  2 Estimate.

  750W
  Yvette Cooper
  Buildings occupied by the Department and its agencies currently purchase energy from utility companies via contracts let by the buying agency. The Department has no information about the proportion of energy supplied by the utility companies that comes from renewable resources.

  Research and Development
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the programmes of research funded under his Department's policy research programme, indicating (i) the organisation holding the research contract, (ii) the research unit undertaking the research, (iii) the start date of the contract, (iv) the end date of the contract, (v) the date of the most recent review of the programme, and (vi) whether negotiations are under way for a new contract and the stage reached in these. [110946]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is given in the table. Following independent review of the Unit's programmes of research, the Department is currently considering new unit contracts.

  Influenza
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of cases of influenza per 100,000 of the population(a) in England and (b) in each health authority in England for each winter in each of the years from 1984–85 to 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [110798]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Influenza activity in England is monitored through the Royal College of General Practitioners sentinel surveillance scheme, which records the number of first visits to participating general practitioners of patients with influenza-like illness. This allows calculation of a rate for those cases of influenza presenting in general practice at any given point during the year and allows comparisons with other years. It is not possible to estimate a total figure for cases of influenza each winter from these data. The information is not collected by health authority area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of working days lost due to the recent flu outbreak. [111148]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the measures contained in the Government's pandemic contingency plans were
  751W
  deployed during the recent flu outbreak, with particular reference to use of anti-virals to limit the spread of infection. [111147]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are in the interpandemic period (`phase zero' of the pandemic plan) and were throughout the winter period. The United Kingdom Health Department's Multiphase Contingency Plan for Pandemic Influenza was not implemented. A flu pandemic involves the emergence of a completely new strain of influenza virus and is a global phenomenon. We last saw a pandemic in 1968.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the arrangements that were put in place prior to the recent flu outbreak to protect(a) health workers and (b) at risk groups by means of vaccination. [111146]

  Yvette Cooper
  A record 8.6 million doses of vaccine were available prior to the winter flu season, of which 7.8 million doses have been distributed to meet orders. Data for flu immunisation uptake among the risk groups is derived from the General Practice Research Database by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Recent changes to the database mean it is not yet possible to provide uptake rates for last year. We expect data to be available within the next few months. In the past, vaccine uptake has not been nearly as high as the Department would like and the Chief Medical Officer has already announced that he will be looking at ways of improving uptake in the future.

  National Health Service trusts were advised that they could include immunising healthcare staff as part of their winter planning last year. The decision to offer the vaccine and which groups of staff this should be offered to, were matters for local decision. Employers were not required to collect information on take up.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111601]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's environmental strategy supports the aim to achieve best environmental practice with a commitment to conserve paper. The paper used to print documentation contains 20 per cent. post-consumer de-inked fibre.

  The Department has a paper re-cycling scheme but does not record the recycling of documentation in isolation.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the money which he has promised to tackle waiting lists represents an additional financial commitment distinct from previous commitments; and if he will make a statement. [111421]

  Mr. Denham
  Baseline allocations to health authorities for 2000–01 were announced on 21 December 1999. The total sum of £34 billion included £276 million to lever performance for waiting lists and times. This is over and above funds given for waiting lists and times in 1999–2000.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children aged 24 months in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Greater London have had the MMR vaccine; and what level of take-up is recommended to avoid outbreaks of (i) mumps, (ii) measles and (iii) rubella. [111285]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: Quarterly coverage data from the Public Health Laboratory Service's COVER programme shows uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine at age 24 months at September 1999 as 88 per cent. for the United Kingdom. Uptake in the London region was 80 per cent.

  The level of uptake of the vaccine recommended to avoid outbreaks of mumps, measles and rubella is 95 per cent. This level of uptake is sufficient to prevent accumulation of pools of susceptible individuals that provide the opportunity for transmission of these diseases.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likelihood of a localised measles outbreak in communities with a low MMR vaccine uptake; and what notification he has received of such outbreaks in the last two years. [111286]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: Large measles outbreaks can occur only when the proportion of children susceptible to measles exceeds target levels. These target levels vary by age and have been defined in the World Health Organisation strategy for measles elimination in Europe. The proportion of children susceptible to measles in the United Kingdom can be estimated from vaccine coverage data and from seroprevalence studies which estimate the number of people without protective levels of antibodies to measles.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service routinely uses both sources of data to help to predict the likely emergence of measles outbreaks. If the current levels of vaccine coverage are maintained, large measles outbreaks in schools are not likely to occur until after 2001. Smaller outbreaks among communities with lower than average coverage may occur sooner. The Department of Health is aware of two such outbreaks in communities with low immunisation coverage. These began at the end of 1997 and at the end of 1999 and are described in the Communicable Disease Report of 28 January 2000, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Cancer and Heart Disease
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it is his policy that future increases in funds for primary care groups will be designated for improving cancer services and coronary heart disease care, with particular reference to the most disadvantaged patients; [110359]

  (2) if it is his policy that future increases in funds for health authorities and primary care groups will be designated for addressing inequalities within the National Health Service. [110360]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The objective of resource allocation is to distribute National Health Service funds fairly through health authorities to primary care groups, based on the healthcare needs of populations.
  753W
  We are committed to modernising all aspects of care and treatment. But the priority is to deal with the biggest killers: cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke. This will help tackle inequalities as the burden of these diseases falls heavily on the most disadvantaged.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and modernising services. Their local strategies are set out in Health Improvement Programmes. These Programmes bring the Government's national priorities together with local priorities. There is particular emphasis on addressing areas of major health inequality in local communities and investing in primary care.

  Health Improvement Programmes are underpinned by Service and Financial Frameworks. These frameworks set out the levels of resources allocated to support the local contribution to the national and local targets and priorities set out in the Health Improvement Programmes.

  We have asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to consider how resource allocation can contribute to the reduction of avoidable health inequalities.

  CS Spray
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken following the publication of the report of the Committee on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment on CS spray, published in September of last year, particularly with regard to those being treated with neuroleptic drugs; and if he will make a statement. [111804]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has considered the Committee of Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment's (COT) report on the operational use of CS spray by police officers, and has concluded that there are no grounds to remove CS spray from police use. The Association of Chief Police Officers has noted the report and accepted its finding that CS spray should be used only within current operational guidelines.

  The COT recommended follow-up studies on individuals treated for the immediate effects of CS spray. The Department of Health is providing technical advice to the Home Office as that Department develops practical ways to take forward this recommendation, which will include gathering information on affected individual's use of neuroleptic drugs.

  Irritable Bowel Syndrome
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on links between fluoride in drinking water and irritable bowl syndrome.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the results of the scientific review of fluoride and health commissioned from York University. [112099]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York is expected to provide their report to Ministers in the spring. It is intended that this report will be published shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned on fluoride in(a) food, (b) soft drinks, (c) milk and (d) dental hygiene products. [112098]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Department of Health Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (JFSSG) has recently completed a survey of fluoride in the 1997 Total Diet Study, a national survey representative of the main types and proportions of foods making up the typical United Kingdom diet. This will show the amount of fluoride in the diet as a whole and in specific food groups including milk and beverages including soft drinks. The results are currently being processed and will be published in full. In addition a test of urinary fluoride is planned for inclusion in the forthcoming National Diet and Nutrition Survey.

  Surrogate Births
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it a requirement that the NHS should provide for women who have had a radical hysterectomy following cervical cancer, the opportunity to have eggs frozen with a view to surrogate birth at a later stage. [112062]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is the responsibility of clinicians who are providing radical treatments to patients which might affect their fertility, to discuss with them the possibility of storing eggs, embryos or sperm if they feel this is appropriate.

  Whether these stored gametes should then be made available for a possible surrogate birth is a matter for those individuals in consultation with their clinicians. We would of course recommend that health authorities seek legal advice before considering funding a surrogacy arrangement on the National Health Service.

  NHS Logo
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated total cost to the NHS of the changeover to the national logo, broken down by estimated cost per(a) health authority, (b) health trust, (c) regional organisation and (d) other NHS body; and what is the longest timescale envisaged for the completion of the exercise. [111870]

  Yvette Cooper
  Adoption of the National Health Service mark is being undertaken as items come up for replacement in the normal course of business. As a result, no NHS organisation has been required to undertake any additional work and no additional costs to NHS organisations are envisaged. New NHS organizations
  755W
  formed as the result of mergers will save money by adoption of the existing mark rather than having to invest in designing a new logo.

  No deadline has been set for NHS organisations to apply the NHS mark universally. Health Authorities have been asked to adopt the existing NHS mark on stationery by January 2001, and NHS trusts by April 2001.

  Osteoporosis
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve health education and preventative programmes for older people at risk of osteoporosis. [111995]

  Yvette Cooper
  An Osteoporosis Strategy was launched in June 1998 by the then Minister for Public Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) at the Sixth Bath Conference on Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Measurement. The Strategy consisted of a Quick Reference Primary Care Guide on prevention and treatment, a laminated desk top guide, and a local health action sheet. Central to the Strategy was the Royal College of Physicians evidence-based Clinical Guidelines on the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. This has provided a firm basis for health authorities to develop their own strategies.

  Information on all these initiatives is available on the Department of Health's website at www.open.gov.uk/doh/osteop.htm.

  Officials in the Department of Health also work closely with the National Osteoporosis Society (NOS) who are the leading charity in this field. NOS are in receipt of departmental funding to assist them with their work in increasing awareness about this disease among clinicians and members of the public.

  Human Genetics Commission
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what annual budget will be available to the Human Genetics Commission. [111961]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Human Genetics Commission is still establishing its work programme and its budget has not yet been finalised for 2000–01 and subsequent years.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis there were in(a) the constituency of Hereford, and (b) nationwide, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.
  [112433]

  Yvette Cooper
  The available information from the Public Health Laboratory Service is given in the table. Notifications data are collected by local authority and are not routinely available by health authority. Data are not available by constituency. The final data for 1999 are not yet available and data for the five years up to 1998 are provided.756W

  Notifications of tuberculosis 1994–98

  Year

  Hereford Local Authority

  England and Wales

  1994

  0

  5,590

  1995

  1

  5,606

  1996

  1

  5,654

  1997

  1

  5,859

  1998

  2

  6,087

  Source:

  NOIDS database, CDSC, 2 March 2000

  The United Kingdom has an excellent record of tuberculosis control and notifications have reached the relatively low levels of around 6,500 cases a year from nearly 50,000 in 1950. This success is against a recent worldwide resurgence in tuberculosis that is having a small but important impact on trends in the United Kingdom, as a result we have recently seen small annual increases in the incidence of tuberculosis.

  To combat these increases we have taken steps to strengthen the surveillance, prevention and control of tuberculosis, including drug resistant tuberculosis within the United Kingdom. Recent developments include:
  the commencement of work on ongoing enhanced surveillance of tuberculosis to improve monitoring;
  the appointment of Regional Epidemiologists to help towards a more co-ordinated approach to surveillance;
  the strengthening of surveillance of drug and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis through a scheme co-ordinated by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS);
  the development—by the PHLS—and availability of more rapid diagnostic and drug susceptibility tests for tuberculosis, which can be used where there is a presence of risk factors which might predispose towards multidrug-resistant tuberculosis;
  the co-ordination of the PHLS's activities through the new Tuberculosis Programme.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in Hereford have(a) had and (b) not had the BCG test and vaccination at the usual age in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [112432]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information about the number of children in Hereford Health Authority who have received the tuberculin test and BCG vaccination to protect against tuberculosis is contained in the table together with resident population estimates for children.

  Herefordshire Health Authority: tuberculin tests and BCG vaccinations, and number of children resident by age group

  Number of skin tests

  Found positive

  Found negative

  Number of vaccinations

  Number of children resident1

  Children under one-year-old

  1994–95

  0

  0

  1

  2,000

  1995–96

  0

  0

  9

  1,900

  1996–97

  0

  6

  9

  1,800

  1997–98

  2

  0

  2

  1,800

  1998–99

  0

  5

  5

  1,900

  757W

  Herefordshire Health Authority: tuberculin tests and BCG vaccinations, and number of children resident by age group

  Number of skin tests

  Found positive

  Found negative

  Number of vaccinations

  Number of children resident1

  Children 10 to 15-years-old

  1994–95

  104

  1,637

  1,693

  2,000

  1995–96

  91

  1,554

  1,621

  2,000

  1996–97

  98

  1,527

  1,631

  2,000

  1997–98

  160

  1,636

  1,837

  2,000

  1998–99

  158

  1,491

  1,673

  2,100

  1 Mid-year resident population estimates; figures for 10–15 age group are averages for a single year cohort, calculated as 1/6 of the total resident population aged 10–15 years.

  Note:

  Neonatal BCG immunisation is recommended only in children born in higher risk groups; infants under three months of age do not require prior skin testing.

  Source:

  KC50

  Department of Health: Statistics Division SD2B

  Because of severe manufacturing problems at Medeva Pharma, the only licensed United Kingdom supplier, supply of BCG and Tuberculin PPD vaccines continues to be disrupted. Stocks being received are insufficient to support the United Kingdom's full immunisation programme and the Department has had no alternative other than to suspend the routine BCG immunisation in schools for children aged 10–14 until continuity of vaccine supply can be guaranteed. Vaccine is being issued, therefore, to immunise people in higher risk categories only, such as neonates at higher risk, contacts of cases, new immigrants and healthcare workers.

  The Department is actively seeking alternative supplies of BCG vaccine in consultation with the World Health Organisation.

  Midwives (North West)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of midwifery vacancies in(a) England and (b) the North West Region. [111816]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: The available information is contained in the table.

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey—Vacancies in NHS Trusts by England and North West Region: midwives as at 31 March 1999

  Whole time equivalents

  Total vacancies1

  3 Month vacancies2

  England total

  810

  370

  North West

  70

  30

  Notes:

  1. Posts that Trusts were actively trying to fill at 31 March 1999.

  2. Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March 1999.

  3. Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey 1999

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112663]
  758W
  Yvette Cooper
  The annual Cabinet Office Publication "Public Bodies" provides information on a range of public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those public bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions list public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of general practitioners per 1,000 population in(a) Oxfordshire, (b) England and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [112647]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the table. Issues relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for their respective administrations.

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs1) per 1,000 population as at 1 October each year

  UPEs per 1,000 population

  Oxfordshire2

  1990

  0.55

  1991

  0.55

  1992

  0.57

  1993

  0.57

  1994

  0.58

  1995

  0.58

  1996

  0.59

  1997

  0.59

  1998

  0.59

  England

  1990

  0.53

  1991

  0.53

  1992

  0.54

  1993

  0.54

  1994

  0.55

  1995

  0.55

  1996

  0.55

  1997

  0.55

  1998

  0.55

  1 UPEs includes unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs

  2 Data relate to Oxfordshire FPC for 1990, Oxfordshire FHSA for 1991 to 1995 and Oxfordshire HA for 1996 to 1998

  Source:

  Department of Health General and personal Medical Services Statistics and ONS Population Data

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population live(a) within one mile of, (b) over one mile from and (c) over three miles from their nearest GP in (i) urban and (ii) rural areas. [112820]

  Ms Stuart
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  However, an analysis based on the Exeter family health services database indicates that in urban areas 94 per cent. of patients live within 1 mile of their nearest surgery, 5 per cent. between 1 and 2.5 miles, and 1 per cent. live more than 2.5 miles away. In rural areas, the figures are 72 per cent, 19 per cent, and 9 per cent. respectively.

  It should be noted that in each of these analyses, percentage of patients will not be the same as percentage of population, due to the effects of any local list inflation.

  Nursing Students
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students started a(a) diploma in nursing and (b) degree in nursing courses in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and what was the drop-out rate for each year's intake. [112918]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the numbers of students commencing nursing diploma and degree courses for the period 1997 to 1999 and attrition rates for 1997 and 1998 are shown in the table. Data on students entering training are published by English National Board in their Annual Report. The numbers entering training in 1999–2000 are based upon the latest forecast from education consortia. It is not possible to provide an attrition rate for the 1999 student intakes since they are incomplete.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Nursing diploma intake

  14,162

  15,410

  16,552

  Attrition

  16.1 per cent.

  5.9 per cent.

  n/a

  Nursing degree intake

  1,214

  1,202

  1,805

  Attrition

  13.3 per cent.

  8.2 per cent.

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Intake data are taken from the English National Board annual report for 1997–98 and 1998–99 and the Financial and Workforce Planning Returns for 1999–2000.

  2. Attrition data are taken from the English National board annual report.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the wastage rate of vaccines used by the NHS resulting from poor storage or distribution conditions and the cost of such wastage to the NHS since May 1997. [112995]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not collected centrally. However, the issue of vaccine usage, including wastage, is the subject of a review currently being conducted, commissioned by the Department. This study will make recommendations on vaccine storage and usage and on measures to minimise wastage at local level; these recommendations will be issued in due course.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of the new meningococcal conjugate vaccine have been discarded because of poor storage or distribution conditions; and what has been the cost to the NHS of discarded doses of the vaccine. [112997]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of the new meningococcal conjugate vaccine have been issued under the current immunisation programme; and how many children have been immunised. [112996]

  Yvette Cooper
  By 27 February 2000, 3,301,280 doses of meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine had been issued for the immunisation of babies, and 2,408,420 doses of vaccine had been issued for the immunisation of schoolchildren aged 15 to 17 years, a total of 5,709,700 doses.

  Data on how many children have been immunised so far are not yet available.

  Animal Experiments (Product Labelling)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to require that all animal and human medicines and vaccines that have been tested on animals should be labelled with such information so as to enable those who oppose the use of animals in medical and veterinary research to make an informed judgment as to whether they should use these products for themselves and their pets. [112625]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: All medicines for human and veterinary use must be tested in animals to provide information about their safety before they can be granted a licence. However, the Government are concerned to ensure that research in animals is undertaken only when necessary to fulfil statutory obligations. There is no statutory requirement for the labels to include a statement to this effect and we have no plans to introduce such a provision.

  Acute Services
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS hospitals offering full acute services which have(a) mixed sex wards and (b) shared toilets; and what targets he has set for the NHS to eliminate mixed sex wards. [113152]

  Mr. Denham
  The data collected on mixed sex hospital accommodation are at health authority level and do not contain detailed information about the position in National Health Service trusts. We have set three specific objectives for the NHS in order to achieve the elimination of mixed sex accommodation:Ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;
  Achieve fully the standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS;
  Provide safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  We aim to achieve these objectives fully in 95 per cent. of all health authorities by 2002.

  The results of a monitoring exercise published in August 1999 showed that 93 per cent. of health authorities would achieve the objectives by 2002.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals providing full acute services have wards which do not reach the HBN 4 minimum stipulation for(a) bed space in multi-bedded wards and (b) ratio of toilets to patients in 24 bed wards. [113158]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Treatments (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in Leicestershire in each year between 1992–93 and the last year for which figures were available. [113167]

  Yvette Cooper
  The tables show the total number of finished consultant in-patient episodes (FCEs) for patients treated in Leicestershire Health Authority for each year between 1992–93 and 1998–99(a) and also the total

  761W
  number of outpatient attendances and first outpatient attendances for patients in Leicestershire Health Authority for each of the same years (b).

  Table A

  Year

  Total

  1992–93

  161,824

  1993–94

  177,035

  1994–95

  191,032

  1995–96

  192,566

  1996–97

  200,726

  1997–98

  205,196

  1998–99

  225,384

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1992–93 to 1996–97 are grossed for coverage. 1997–98 and 1998–99 figures are ungrossed.

  2. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  3.After 1994–95 District Health Authorities changed to Health Authorities.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Table B

  Year

  Total attendances

  First attendances

  1992–93

  584,426

  138,136

  1993–94

  600,394

  152,938

  1994–95

  616,252

  164,717

  1995–96

  627,634

  173,060

  1996–97

  662,124

  185,073

  1997–98

  686,184

  189,419

  1998–99

  690,263

  195,052

  Source:

  Figures are taken from the annual Körner return KH09 'Consultant outpatient attendance activity'

  "Outpatients and ward attenders for England", a copy of which is placed in the Library, contains information for individual National Health Service trusts along with summary tables for England. The returns are made on a financial year basis and the latest year for which data are available is 1998–99.
  £4 million Mental Health Partnership Fund to support innovative service strategies around broader mental health policy initiatives. £12 million support for education and training for doctors and nurses.
  £1 million estimated expenditure on drug treatment.
  £17 million estimated expenditure on drug treatments.

  Allocations to health authorities are through unified allocations and bidding processes. Allocations to local authorities are hypothecated through the Mental Health Grant.

  Money allocated for implementation of the Mental Health National Service Framework across health and social care will be identified thorough Joint Investment Plans and will be robustly scrutinised through performance management systems to ensure full utilisation.

  Births Asphyxia
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many payments and interim payments were made for births asphyxia by each NHS trust for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, and (c) his estimate for 2000–01; and
  762W
  how much in total was paid out by each trust for this type of claim in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) his estimate for 2000–01. [113150]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Rat Infestation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure in each of the last three financial years on controlling and treating rat infestation in(a) hospitals and (b) other NHS premises. [113042]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not collect this information centrally.

  Contraceptive Drugs
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost to the NHS of paying general practitioners an item of service fee for prescribing emergency contraceptive drugs in each of the years 1990 to 1997. [113165]

  Yvette Cooper
  General practitioners do not receive an item of service fee for prescribing these drugs.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 388W, (1) what was the source of his Department's estimate that the risk of cerebral palsy among babies born weighing less than 1,500 grammes is 70 times higher than among babies weighing 2,500 grammes or more at birth; and what was the year and geographical area to which it applies; [113096]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to monitor trends in cerebral palsy in England, in relation to the rate of low birthweight. [113097]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information was obtained from the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, based on figures from population registers of children and young adults with cerebral palsy in the former Mersey, Northern and Oxford Regions, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The risk estimates provided are based on data from babies born in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

  Data are not collected centrally on the numbers of children with cerebral palsy.

  Births
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 387W, what attempts his Department has made to link data from the birth registration system with the data from the Hospital Episode Statistics in order to provide data of the type requested. [113094]

  Yvette Cooper
  Discussions are currently taking place between officials from the Department and the Office for National Statistics and a pilot study has been proposed to investigate the feasibility of linking data from the Office for National Statistics birth registration records to Hospital Episode Statistics birth records.
  763W
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 387W, what are the estimated numbers of records in the Hospital Episode Statistics for 1997–98 which relate to a delivery of a baby, the numbers of these which have maternity tails and the numbers of maternity tails which contain the data required; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that trusts which do not submit complete maternity data do so in the future. [113095]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are an estimated 601,000 National Health Service hospital delivery records in Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) for 1997–98, of which some 40,000 are thought to be duplicate records. By definition all HES delivery records have a tail; about 351,000 of the tails contain a valid method of delivery.

  It is the responsibility of NHS trusts to ensure that HES data are accurate and complete. To encourage submission of complete and accurate data, the Department is to publish later this year a National Data Quality Indicator, which will include a component to address the coverage of maternity data and, where maternity data are provided, their quality will also be assessed.

  Miscarriages
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 387W, what information is recorded by general practitioners on claims submitted to health authorities for fees for giving care to women who have miscarried; and what statistics are derived from this information by (a) health authorities and (b) his Department. [113092]

  Yvette Cooper
  General practitioners record on fee claim forms the following information relating to miscarriage services: patient name (except in cases for emergency treatment where the doctor decides not to ask for the patient's name) date, expected date of confinement, place of treatment or whether the patient was transferred to hospital, date of discharge from hospital, and date of last service provided by the doctor.

  The Department does not routinely collect data on miscarriage statistics from health authorities. Health authorities make their own arrangements for reviewing miscarriage statistics where appropriate.

  Foetal Tissue Banks
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the foetal tissue banks in the UK. [113496]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Medical Research Council Foetal Tissue Bank based at the Hammersmith Hospital, London is the main foetal tissue bank in the United Kingdom. The Department is aware of additional banks based at the Institute of Child Health, London and at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  Smoking
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the additional health risk of smoking cigarettes containing(a) calcium carbonate, (b) cellulose fibre, (c) Di-ammonium
  764W
  (d) hydrogen phosphate, (e) ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, (f) Sorbitol, (g) citric acid and its tripotassium and trisodium salts, (h) menthol, (i) cocoa, (j) sucrose and sucrose syrup, (k) glycerol, (l) liquorice, (m) benzoic acid and/or its potassium salts, (n) caramel, (o) dried extracts and esters of fruits, (p) acetic acid, (q) guar gom, (r) propylene glycol, (s) magnesium oxide, (t) carboxymethyl cellulose, (u) humic acid, (v) triethylene glycol, (w) polyvinyl alcohol, (x) triethylene glycol, (y) methyl hydroxy propyl cellulose, (z) diatomaceous earth, (aa) potassium chloride, (bb) sodium chloride, (cc) cellulose acetate propionate, (dd) glyoxal, (ee) ortho-phosphoric acid and (ff) iron oxide. [113508]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: All the substances listed have been assessed as additives to tobacco products (cigarette, cigars, pipe and hand rolling tobacco) using the guidelines detailed in the report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (Annex K Appendix 1), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with tobacco manufacturers regarding additives used in cigarettes; if he will list those additives known to be used; and if he will make a statement. [113509]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: None. Officials meet members of the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association twice a year to monitor the Voluntary Agreement on the approval and use of the additives in tobacco products in the United Kingdom. They have also met, both individually and collectively, tobacco company representatives on an ad hoc basis to discuss additives. The list of additives is available in the Library and on the following website:
  www.givingupsmoking.co.uk

  Electro-convulsive Treatment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the use of electro-convulsive treatment following his Department's earlier survey; and if he will make a statement. [113361]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: There are no special plans for future monitoring of electro-convulsive treatment. It is expected that more useful and reliable information on ECT will be obtained from the Mental Health Minimum Data Set which is gradually being implemented across all mental health trusts between now and 2003.

  BCG Vaccine
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long the BCG vaccine programme in schools in North Essex will remain suspended; and if he will make a statement. [113517]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 261W.

  Mount Vernon Hospital
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of cleft lip and palate surgery and treatment at Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, Middlesex. [113463]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I understand that following advice from an inter-regional group chaired by Professor John Murray, the National Health Service Executive, London Regional Office and its Regional Specialist Commissioning Group (RSCG) take the view that cleft lip and palate surgery cannot be sustained at Mount Vernon Hospital.

  At its meeting of 6 March the RSCG recommended that centres should be designated at Great Ormond Street Hospital in partnership with St. Andrew's Centre Broomfield and Guy's and St. Thomas Hospitals, in partnership with Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead. If these proposals are accepted by the health authorities, following consultation, their implementation will require Mount Vernon services to transfer to another site.

  My position as a Minister prevents me from commenting further on these proposals at this stage.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where in London and the south-east of England he has decided that specialist cleft lip and palate surgical facilities will be located; [113464]

  (2) which specialist cleft lip and palate surgical and treatment units will be closed in London and south-east England during the next five years. [113594]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service is presently undertaking a review of cleft lip and palate services following the report of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group published in 1998, copies of which are available in the Library. Decisions on the designation of specialist cleft centres in London and south-east regions are expected shortly.

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to close Harefield Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [113572]

  Mr. Denham
  The proposals made by the West London Partnership Forum (WLPF) relating to specialist services in West London are not about closure. They are about improving care for patients of the future. The WLPF wishes to do this by bringing together world leading teams from both hospitals in the best possible environment for patients, clinical services and research. There will be full public consultation on the options for specialist services in west London, starting in the summer 2000. My position as Minister prevents me from commenting further on the proposals at this stage.

  Residence Orders
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residence orders are in place for children who might otherwise be looked after; and what plans he has to increase such provision for children and young people for whom adoption is not the right answer. [113040]
  766W
  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not have information about how many residence orders are extant; however in 1998, the latest year for which figures are published, 30,398 residence orders were made.

  Residence orders and adoption orders are not necessarily or usually alternative disposals in the same case. Residence orders are often made in cases in which no question of adoption or any form of state intervention arises, for example to determine which parent a child will live with following the breakdown of a marriage. The Government have no plans to increase the number of residence orders; it is for the courts to determine whether the making of a residence order is in the best interests of the child in any particular case.

TREASURY

  Investment (Indonesia)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue designated Indonesia as not being a suitable market in which to invest directly.
  [112312]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Inland Revenue has a discretionary power to recognise overseas stock exchanges for the general purposes of the Taxes Acts.

  Government policy is to consider recognition on application by a foreign exchange. So it does not follow from the fact that an exchange is not recognised that it is considered by the Inland Revenue as unsuitable for investors.

  Personal Portfolio Bonds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are taken into account by the Inland Revenue in determining whether an overseas stock market should qualify as eligible for inclusion in personal portfolio bonds. [112313]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The test of whether shares and securities are listed on a recognised exchange is widely used to characterise tax provisions and to determine eligibility for tax reliefs. The test is therefore not related specifically to any one particular provision, like personal portfolio bonds.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the expected change in after-tax income for single-income families with two children who earn(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £40,000 and (d) £80,000 of taxable income as a result of the 1p reduction in income tax to be implemented in April. [111573]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have introduced a range of measures designed to make work pay and to increase support for families with children, including the 10p starting rate of tax, the National Minimum Wage and Working Families Tax Credit. The cut in the basic rate is another of those measures. Families with children will on average be £740 per year better off as a result of measures in the last two budgets.

  Receivers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow the off-setting for tax purposes of the expenses incurred by(a) receivers in furtherance of their official duties and (b) the Public Trust officers' fees, if he will allow these costs to be available for off-setting against the gross income of persons, incapable of dealing with their own affairs, who require the assistance of receivers and the Public Trust Office; and if he will make a statement. [113269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans to change the tax treatment of these items.

  Youth Unemployment (Worcester)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the youth unemployment figures on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 February 2000 for the following wards within the City of Worcester
  (i) St. Johns, (ii) St. Clement, (iii) Bedwardine, (iv) Claines, (v) St. Stephen, (vi) St. Barnabas, (vii) St. Martin, (viii) Holy Trinity, (ix) Nunney, (x) St. Peter, (xi) All Saints and (xii) St. Nicholas; and if he will make a statement. [113271]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Michael J. Foster, dated 8 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on unemployment in Worcester.
  The ONS publishes a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Information on the levels of computerised claims by age for wards can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library. Computerised claims do not include clerical claims which currently make up about one per cent. of the total claimant count. Claimant count statistics for February 2000 will be released on 15 March 2000.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) each ward and (b) the total in Shrewsbury and Atcham the number of (i) long-term unemployed, (ii) youth unemployment and (iii) total unemployed for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [113275]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 8 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on unemployed people in Shrewsbury and Atcham.
  The ONS publishes a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance
  768W
  credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Information on the levels of claimant by age and duration (computerised claims only) for wards and parliamentary constituencies can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library. Computerised claims do not include clerical claims which currently make up about one per cent. of the total claimant count.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 266–67W, on how many occasions in the past five years Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has referred to the European Commission instances of goods alleged to have been imported under preference as Made in Israel which were produced in Occupied Territories or elsewhere; on how many occasions in the past five years the European Commission had established the origin of the products in question; in how many of these cases the origin was established as (i) within the internationally recognised borders of Israel, (ii) within the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights and (iii) elsewhere; and what was the average time taken by the European Commission to establish the origin of goods referred by the UK Government to the Commission for possible violation of the Protocol on Rules of Origin of the EC Trade Agreement with Israel in the last five years. [113551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has advised the European Commission in relation to four separate products. They have yet to be made aware of the outcome of any investigations conducted by the European Commission.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 266–67W, concerning Israel (a) whether he has examined imported goods still held by the consignee to obtain actual evidence of origin, (b) when the imports of wines from (i) the Golan Heights and (ii) the Israeli West Bank settlement of Barkan, were first detected, (c) when details were first passed to the European Commission and (d) whether the Syrian Government have been informed of the detection of imports from Israeli settlements on the Golan Heights. [113417]

  Dawn Primarolo
  (a) Customs will shortly be visiting a consignee identified as being an importer of dates from Israel. The outcome will be notified to the European Commission.

  (b) Information was received on both products in May 1999.

  (c) In June 1999.

  (d) The Syrian Government have not been informed by HM Customs and Excise.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 266–67W, (a) when the imports of carpets from the Israeli West Bank settlement of Barkan were first detected, (b) when details were first passed to the European Commission, (c) how many consignments of carpets from the area Barkan have been imported into the UK under preferences, (d) what type of goods were

  769W
  described in the details obtained by the European Commission and (e) when he expects the European Commission to make its assessment. [113550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  (a) November 1999, as a direct result of information received from the European Commission.

  (b) December 1999.

  (c) 1998–12; 1999—None.

  (d) The goods described covered a range of agricultural and industrial products.

  (e) There is no indication as to when the European Commission is expected to make an assessment.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the Windfall Tax Fund has been spent on programmes in Wales to the latest date. [113494]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the allocation of the Windfall Tax receipts between the different programmes, as currently estimated, is set out in Table 4.1 of the 1999 Pre Budget Report. Many Windfall Tax funded programmes are demand-led, with expenditure allocated by participant and not by country, region or any other geographical area. For this reason it is not possible to provide a reliable and robust estimate of the amount which has been spent in Wales.

  VAT
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to press other EU member states to broaden the experimental arrangement of Council Directive 1999/85/EC (Annex K to Sixth VAT Directive) to provide for the inclusion of repairs to historic and listed buildings. [113562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Repairs to historic and listed buildings are already included in the experimental reduced rate if they are dwellings.

  Further discussion of the scope of the reduced rate is unlikely until the current experiments have concluded and been fully evaluated. The Commission is due to report at the end of 2002.

  Petroleum Products Smuggling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) vehicles were seized by HM Customs and Excise for alleged smuggling of petroleum products in Northern Ireland and (b) litres of fuel were seized in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [113538]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Customs have made the following seizures of petroleum products in Northern Ireland:

  Financial year

  Litres of fuel

  Vehicles seized

  1998–99

  584,000

  39

  1999–20001

  915,691

  98

  1 April to February

  Duchy of Cornwall
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax status of the Duchy of Cornwall, with particular reference to the tax exemptions which apply. [112834]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The tax arrangements for the Duchy of Cornwall are set out in the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation, attached to the Report of the Royal Trustees published on 11 February 1993 (HC 464).

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the Exchequer of providing the Working Families Tax Credit to couples with children if couples split their total earnings in half and the credit was calculated on each half assuming the 55 per cent. taper started cutting in at(a) £45, (b) £50, (c) £60, (d) £70 and (e) £80. [112475]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The limitations of the data available to model these changes, and the uncertainty over behavioural effects, are such that reliable estimates are not available in the detail required.

  The reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 9 February 2000, Official Report, column 214W, provided a rough indication of the high cost involved in splitting the total earnings of couples in the calculation of Working Families Tax Credits. Lowering the income threshold to the levels specified in the question would reduce the cost but precise estimates which take into account the varying behavioural effects could be provided only at disproportionate costs. As a rough guide, halving the income threshold from the current £90 to £45 per week would still more than double the existing cost of Working Families Tax Credits, before allowing for differential behavioural effects.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, for each quintile group ranked by equivalised disposable household income, the percentage of gross income accounted for by the Working Families Tax Credit. [112950]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Quintile by equivalised disposable household income

  Estimated percentage of gross income accounted to by the Working Families Tax Credit

  Lowest quintile group

  3.5

  Second

  2.2

  Third

  0.4

  Fourth

  1—

  Highest quintile group

  1—

  1 Sample numbers too small for reliable estimates to be made

  The figures assume 100 per cent. take-up of entitlement and will tend to overestimate the proportion of Working Families Tax Credit going to the higher quintiles. It is also known that some of the types of household containing families now eligible for Working Families Tax Credit are under-represented in the survey data used to model these estimates.
  771W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients of Working Families Tax Credit are paid at the minimum wage; what proportion this is of total Working Families Tax Credit claimants; how much Working Families Tax Credit is being paid in total to claimants claiming at the minimum wage; and what proportion this is of total Working Families Tax Credit expenditure, all figures for over the latest period for which figures are available and including family credit if applicable; [112756]

  (2) how many recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit are paid at rates above the minimum wage; and how many are paid at the minimum wage. [113581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: The information requested is not available. For each employed claimant, the information captured to the computer system is of gross earnings in each relevant pay period, and a single figure of normal hours worked. These two pieces of information therefore have different coverages, and cannot be used to derive an hourly wage for each case.

  Inflation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 769W, on inflation, if regional price data have been made available to the European Commission for use in calculating regional GDP per head; and what plans the Chancellor has to instruct the Office for National Statistics to publish regional price and real GDP data for the UK. [113470]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 8 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on whether regional price data have been made available to the European Commission for use in calculating regional GDP per head, and any plans the Chancellor has to instruct the ONS to publish regional price and real GDP data for the UK.
  Regional GDP per head is calculated from estimates of regional GDP converted on to a common currency using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs). The PPPs used in the calculation are based on national average prices and the same average PPP is applied to each region within a country.
  The Office for National Statistics has no plans to publish regional price and real GDP data for the UK.

  Low-income Households
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many earners in the UK earn less than £60 per week; how many households in the UK contain an earner who earns less than £60 per week; and what changes there have been in these numbers since 1980. [113469]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  772W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 8 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning people earning less than £60 per week.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the ONS's major source of labour market data on individuals. It can provide information on the earnings of employees and the number and proportion of employees earning below £60. However, LFS estimates on earnings are only available from winter (December to February) 1992/3. Estimates for the autumn (September to November) quarters of 1993, 1997 and 1999 are given in the table below. The figures are for Great Britain and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Employees with gross weekly earnings of less than £60 Great Britain, autumn 1993, 1997 and 1999, not seasonally adjusted

  Autumn

  000s

  1993

  2,466

  1997

  2,254

  1999

  1,849

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey

  The LFS has no information available on the number of households containing an earner who earns less than £60 per week.
  Estimates from the Family Resources Survey for the period 1997–98 covering Great Britain show that the ratio between the number of households, where at least one earner earns less than £60 a week, and the number of individuals earning less than £60 a week is 96 per cent.

  IR35
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum amount of(a) national insurance and (b) personal taxation that an individual will pay under the changes caused by the introduction of IR35. [112989]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: The amount of personal tax and National Insurance Contributions that a personal service company will have to pay following the introduction of IR35 will depend on individual circumstances. It is not possible to provide estimates of the maximum amounts payable.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected net revenue gain from the introduction of IR35; and what assumptions the Government have made as to the number of business closures and the extent of business migration overseas for the purposes of calculating this figure. [112763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the revenue which will arise from the proposed measure to stop avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions using personal service companies were included in the Financial Statement and Budget Report published on Budget Day in March 1999. Information on the assumptions used was included in the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill which was published in October 1999.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contractors operating through personal service companies have moved overseas(a) in each year since 1992 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available; and what is his Department's estimate for each of the next three years. [112764]
  773W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, broken down by industrial sectors, the extra taxation that the introduction of IR35 will place on contractors operating through personal service companies(a) next year, (b) in 2001–02 and (c) in 2002–03, assuming current levels of tax rates. [112765]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the tax liability arising from the introduction of IR35 by industrial sector which prevents avoidance of tax and NICs. However, a breakdown of the 50,000 personal service companies that are estimated to be affected by this measure by broad industry group is provided in the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill published in October 1999.

  Mr. St.Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extra revenue which will arise as a result of the introduction of IR35. [112858]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the revenue which will arise from the proposed measure to stop avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions using personal service companies were included in the Financial Statement and Budget Report published on Budget Day in March 1999.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which sectors of industry benefit most from the rules on national insurance contributions that would be changed under IR35 proposals. [112859]
  774W
  Dawn Primarolo
  All sectors of industry will benefit from the changes we propose. IR35 will prevent avoidance of NIC and right level of tax, allowing us to target support on the real entrepreneurs.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 516W, on Government debt over the 1975 to 1999 period, what the estimated interest cost of the difference between nominal and gross debt values is; what measures have been undertaken to ensure this will not occur again; and which officials responsible for the debt funding decisions have been disciplined in connection with this matter. [113468]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The answer of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 516W, on Government debt gave figures for central Government gross debt at (a) nominal and (b) market prices. These are two different valuations of the same debt and so the interest on them would always be the same. The reason for this is that the market values the debt, some of which may have been issued when market conditions for interest rates were different, to reflect current yields. Thus actual interest divided by debt at market valuation is in line with current rates of interest, whereas actual interest divided by nominal debt reflects the mix of historic market conditions when the debt was issued.

  Taxation (Spouses)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the principle of independent taxation of husband and wife. [113580]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor stated his commitment to the principle of independent taxation of husbands and wives when he gave evidence to the Treasury Committee in March 1999.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Marriage: Fiscal Support
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial support they are giving to the institution of marriage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, within my own departmental responsibility, I am increasing the money spent on marriage and relationship support in England and Wales to £4 million in 2000–01, rising to £5 million per year in 2002.
Let me add, however, that the Government are unequivocal in their strong support for marriage. Our consultation document, Supporting Families, affirms that,
"marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain".
We firmly believe that,
"marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships".
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, but it does not quite answer the Question. The work being carried out by the noble and learned Lord's department is necessary, but it is not really producing the goods. We have the second highest divorce rate in the western world. The Government say many warm and comforting words about marriage. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord himself said that we have a duty to support marriage. Is he aware that after the abolition of the married couples allowance on 5th April, we shall be the only country in the western world that does not recognise marriage through the tax system? Does he believe that that decision supports marriage, or is he saying one thing and doing another?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly not. I do not believe that people choose to marry or to remain in marriage because of fiscal inducements from the state. I have a much higher view of people than that. I believe that people, often women, can be trapped in a dependent relationship because of their means, but that is a quite separate issue.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explain how the Government's fiscal policies work to prioritise the interests of children?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to answer that question from my noble friend, who is the chair of the Women's National Commission, and to do so today on International Women's Day—the very day on which my noble friend the Leader of the House has promulgated a campaign to promote the participation of women in public life.
Yes, our fiscal priority is to put children first. Children are 20 per cent of our population, but 100 per cent of our future. We concentrate resources on where they are most needed: on families bringing up children, particularly those on lower incomes. It would be wrong to discriminate against children on account of their parents' status. By 2001, we shall be spending £6 billion per year on extra support for children.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can we set aside the previous planted question and return to my noble friend's Question? Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor believe it sensible that we, of all the countries in the western world, will not have any recognition of marriage in our tax system after 5th April? Does not that seem wrong? Is it not sending out the wrong signal? Does not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor realise that some people do indeed refrain from marriage for financial reasons? After 5th April, there will be an additional financial reason to refrain from marriage. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, marriage is the best way to bring up children.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to say that a vast amount of humbug is talked about abolishing the married couples allowance. It falls outside my responsibility, but it is really a misnomer. The married couples allowance is not restricted to married couples. It is a tax break paid at the same flat rate to married couples, to single parents, and to unmarried parents living together. The previous government called it an anomaly and reduced it from 40 per cent to 15 per cent. When I hear the merits of that allowance invoked by the Government Front Bench—I mean the Opposition Front Bench; I must not mix them up again!—I must remind your Lordships that the now shadow Chancellor, Michael Portillo, is himself no supporter of the married couples allowance. When cutting it in 1994, he said that it was the most anomalous of allowances and that there was no ongoing justification for it. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his mind.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, Sir Graham Hart's review published last March suggested that a clear distinction should be drawn between funds for research and development and the strategic funding of marriage support agencies. The noble and learned Lord has assured that House that there has been a real increase in expenditure. Will he indicate how much or what percentage of that expenditure is going to the marriage support agencies?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall write to the right reverend Prelate about that matter, but I believe that the overwhelming bulk—if not all—is going to the agencies, not to research, and that there is a separate research budget.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of what has been said from the other side of the House, is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who abolished inheritance tax between spouses was a Labour Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Healey?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that to be correct.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a divorced parent of one marriage that has failed and in the light of what has been said about children coming first, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees that it is important that we encourage and reward parents for staying in a marriage because we know that children brought up in a proper stable marriage perform better in school and later in life?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said. I believe that marriage is the surest foundation for bringing up children. One has no grip on reality if one believes that fiscal incentives induce people to marry or to stay in a marriage that has failed.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to amend the working families' tax credit when no account is taken of the married wife who stays at home to look after children and does not go out to work, thus disadvantaging the whole of that family?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not accept that description of the working families' tax credit. It is much more generous than the family credit that it replaced. Working families with children will receive an average £24 more a week than under family credit. That, combined with other government policies, will lift 1.25 million people out of poverty, of whom 800,000 are children.

Police Numbers
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for the total number of police officers in England and Wales; and whether these figures represent an increase or reduction in the total number of police officers in England and Wales since March 1997.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, at the end of September 1999 the total number of police officers in England and Wales was 125,464. That is 1,694 fewer officers
than in March 1997. At the same date, civilian support staff numbers were 53,254, an
1040
increase of 243 since March 1997. Civilians now account for 30 per cent of police service personnel. Following the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the actual number of police officers at any one time is a matter for chief constables to determine within available resources.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he agree that since March 1997 police numbers have fallen from 125,052 to 123,050 and that 30 police force areas out of 43 have fewer police officers, or are my figures fictional?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the figures that the noble Baroness has read out differ from mine, but that may be because the accounting period is slightly different. I had expected some sympathy from the noble Baroness as on 22nd July 1996 she said (at col. 1164 of the Official Report):
"we can play with statistics as much as we like, but I can say that the money for 1,000 police officers has been made available to the police … The chief police officers themselves are predicting that there will be over 1,600 more in this present financial year, 1996–97".
Sadly, the noble Baroness got it wrong and there was an increase of 257 police officers.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was the previous administration—this is not a planted question—who enacted the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 which, as he rightly said, took away the power to determine the number of police officers from the Home Secretary and gave it to the chief constables, some of whom unfortunately decided that the money was better spent on things like bigger headquarters, bigger and better cars, and so on, but not on manpower? Does he also recall that it was the previous administration who took away housing allowance for new recruits, thereby, at a stroke, creating a two-tier police service and that that is one of the major factors in low morale and the great difficulty that many of our police forces have in attracting recruits?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with wisdom and greater knowledge of these matters than most Members of your Lordships' House. I agree with him. Actions taken by the previous government have made recruitment increasingly difficult within the police service. Sadly, it is the case that police numbers have been falling since 1993. They fell in every year in the life of the previous government with the exception of 1996–97. That underlines the difficulty. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set aside ring-fenced money within the crime fighting fund to increase the number of officers by some 5,000 over and above those who would ordinarily be recruited. That is a statement of our longstanding commitment to retaining the strength of our police service.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I chair a police authority. Can the Minister confirm that one of the main reasons why we do not have sufficient money with which to finance more police officers is the great cost of police pensions? Can he tell us when the Government will make the long-awaited announcement on what we shall do about police pay and pensions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept that police pensions place a particularly heavy burden upon local police authorities. There is no doubt that that continues to be a problem. Pension costs have been an increasing burden on police authorities. The Government are looking at the situation. We have been looking at it since March 1998 when we published the consultation document, and we are looking at all the options. When we come to a final view on the matter we shall endeavour to consult further with the Association of Police Authorities so that we can get it right for the future and so that police authorities do not have to carry an undue burden in relation to pension costs.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister referred to the famous 5,000, which he called additional numbers. Will he confirm that even including those, the target for the next three years is to acquire 17,500 extra policemen? Given that over 16,000 are due to retire, that means there will still be fewer policemen at the end of the next three years than there were when the Labour Government came to office, at which time, as he just confirmed, the numbers of policemen were rising?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the numbers of policemen rose only over the last year of the last government against a background of a decline since 1993. We stuck to their spending plans for the first two years of our government and police numbers continued to decline. That is why my right honourable friend set up the crime fighting fund. It is a ring-fenced fund to get police officers in place. As no doubt many will be aware, there will continue to be recruitment difficulties. Our aim is to ensure that we have 5,000 additional police officers over and above those that the chief constables expect to recruit.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, wished to ask a question also. However, we have reached 15 minutes on the clock and must move on.

Hospitals: Infection Control
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to respond to the report from the National Audit Office which suggests that 5,000 patients a year are killed by infections in hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of kings Heath): My Lords, the Government take infection control seriously and have developed a strong programme of measures to ensure that the NHS strengthens hospital infection control arrangements. The most recent steps include the issue of National Priority Guidelines that cite improvement as an essential task for NHS organisations.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware not only of the National Audit Office's statement that 5,000 patients die annually from infections, but also that the cost to the health service is £1 billion a year? Is he satisfied that nurses' training includes what most of us regard as elementary precautions on cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals? Is he aware also that nowadays many people say that if we go into hospital we should be sure to take cleaning materials and disinfectant because we will find that the bathrooms in particular are extremely dirty?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I am aware of the figure of £1 billion and the suggestion that 5,000 deaths are caused by hospital-acquired infection. But those figures must be treated with caution. The 5,000 deaths figure was extrapolated from statistics in the United States. It is hard to put a firm figure on the numbers because those who have an infection and die in hospital are often sick with other conditions as well. However, regrettably I accept that some patients die because of an acquired infection. I accept also that the cost to the NHS is considerable in financial terms.
There are two aspects to cleanliness. First, I agree that we need a strong culture in the NHS which ensures that everyone recognises their responsibility to act in the most hygienic way possible. This is a major responsibility for nurses and doctors who set the conditions and tone for everyone else. But over the past few years the NHS suffered also because of the move to compulsory competitive tendering in relation to cleaning services, and undoubtedly that reduced cleaning standards.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report stated that some chief executives did not take adequate interest in hospital-acquired infection? Is it not time that infections such as MRSA become notifiable?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer is at the moment developing a strategy for tackling communicable diseases and will be looking

1043
at a number of areas where we can improve the way in which we approach the difficult problem of MRSA, which was identified by your Lordships' committee a couple of years ago.
The noble Baroness is quite right that the NAO stated that some chief executives were not taking their responsibilities seriously enough. That is why we ensured that the National Priority Guidelines made clear that that must be an essential priority and we remind NHS boards and chief executives of their clinical governance responsibilities through the new standards on infection control issued last November and the health circular issued in February this year. With a programme of action in place to ensure that we obtain effective measures to control and prevent infection so far as it is possible to do so, I believe that we can turn this situation round.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in relation to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is the Minister aware, on a reading of the National Audit Office report, that there had been many previous reports on this matter and that the single issue on which the Department of Health could be most effective is by making things like MRSA a notifiable infection? Or does he prefer—washing his hands of the issue—the theory of the NAO report, that it is the Treasury that failed to provide the necessary resources for infection control? I offer both those theories.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the single most important way of reducing hospital infection is the determination of those who lead individual organisations at local level to recognise that this is a serious problem. The whole basis on which this Government approach the matter is to make it clear to NHS trusts and their chief executives that this is a matter that warrants their personal attention, that they need proper infection control measures in place at local level and that all staff should be aware of the importance of good cleanliness, handwashing and everything else that will contribute to an effective policy.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I do not suppose he will be—that my mother trained at Great Ormond Street and Guy's Hospital in the 1920s and 1930s? Most of her junior nursing time was spent cleaning, even down to polishing castors on beds. They understood in those days that infection was from cross-contamination. With the introduction of antibiotics those cleaning regimes rather fell off. Now that we have antibiotic resistance, is it not time that scrupulous attention is paid not just to washing hands, but to keeping wards clean and checking that there is no peeling paint, as there is at St. Thomas' Hospital, for example, the flagship hospital of London?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is important that cleaning as a service in hospitals is as effective as possible. I have no doubt whatever that in the past decade those standards have not been as good as they
1044
ought to be. We are in the process of reviewing our policy on market testing of support services such as cleaning. We are making it clear in guidelines that those who have to make judgments about support services need to ensure that within the specifications and the judgments as to where contracts are placed, quality and patient satisfaction is as important as cost.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when my wife was in St. Thomas' Hospital two years ago, she had to clean out a bath that was covered in blood?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was not aware of that. The noble Lord illustrates a problem that the NHS has faced for a considerable number of years. In tackling the issues of cleanliness in hospital wards, we must ensure that the cleaning services are appropriate. Equally, it is important that ward sisters, who play such a crucial leadership role, have sufficient control to ensure that the cleaning services are acceptable and that they lead by example in terms of personal cleanliness and in ensuring that doctors, nurses and other staff wash their hands and do all the things that are necessary.

Mozambique
2.59 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Mozambique disaster, the co-ordination of the emergency response to disasters within government is satisfactory.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, yes.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very brief reply. Can she tell the House when, after the formation of the DfID, the MoD and the DfID agreed their relevant contingency plans and the basis for charging?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, ongoing discussions are taking place between the DfID, the MoD and, indeed, other government departments on the best ways to respond to disaster and emergency situations. The financing of such plans forms a part of those continuing discussions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the efforts made by her department to commission South African helicopters to bring in immediate aid during the earliest stages of the crisis that has struck Mozambique. However, will the Minister, using her undoubted charm and intelligence, approach her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether equipment for replacing bridges that have been breached by the floods and mending the main roads could now be considered to be a top priority'? Does the

1045
Minister agree that air transport is an extremely expensive way of delivering food and other aid to the people of Mozambique?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for her recognition of the efforts that have been made by the Department for International Development. Clearly, the tasks of rehabilitation and reconstruction in Mozambique will be critical. Plans have already been made to hold a donor co-ordination conference to discuss the reconstruction effort. The British Government are doing all they can to bring forward plans on how best Mozambique can be assisted in that reconstruction. Those plans will include discussions with other government departments.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the view of the vast majority of fair-minded people, far from carping at the lack of cooperation between the two government departments, we should be congratulating both of my right honourable friends, Clare Short and Geoff Hoon, on the work that they have done? Does she further agree that it particularly ill becomes the Opposition Benches who, when in government, presided over the greatest cut in overseas aid resources that had ever taken place, which took us further and further away from meeting the as yet unattained obligation to the United Nations of donating 0.7 per cent of our GNP for development assistance?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Not only should we congratulate my right honourable friends Clare Short and Geoff Hoon, but also our servicemen and women, all the volunteers who have given their time, effort and energy to work in Mozambique, the aid agencies and, indeed, the people of Mozambique themselves. They have had to deal with a situation which would be a challenge for any government. I further agree with my noble friend that this Government have demonstrated a strong commitment to international development. We have reversed the decline in the international development budget and we are committed to trying to ensure that the budget is increased to meet the 0.7 per cent target mentioned by my noble friend. Perhaps I may also add that I believe it is important for us to feel a sense of pride in the UK's response to the Mozambique flood disaster. Our response was immediate. In relation to this crisis, we remain the largest bilateral donor in Mozambique and we are committed to assisting in the country's reconstruction effort.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, for a large part of the public, the response did not appear to be immediate but rather the culmination of a protracted difference between two government departments over which the Prime Minister should have taken early control? Furthermore, if, as her response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, suggests,
1046
that was not the case, would not the best way to make the truth clear be to respond to the request to hold a public inquiry into exactly what happened?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we must differentiate between the facts and how we respond to those facts. Anyone who saw the pictures that were shown on our television screens over the past week would be concerned. Members of the public do not have all the information that we in this House and in another place have to hand when planning the way in which we should respond to an international disaster of the kind we have seen in Mozambique. No operational delay occurred as a result of the discussions between the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. We were one of the first donors to go into Mozambique. We remain the largest bilateral donor. We assisted the World Food Programme with helicopters even before the UN had gone into Mozambique. Those are the facts and the points that should be remembered. I think it would help us all if the press—who themselves used up scarce resources by using helicopters—were to report more of what has been beneficial in terms of our assistance rather than to go on carping.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, even before this crisis, Mozambique was, quite rightly, a priority country for assistance, both in terms of development aid and debt relief. Will the Minister confirm that both development aid and debt relief are now being accelerated because of the recent crisis and that the Mozambiquans will in fact be better off once the crisis is over?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall make three points in response to the noble Earl's question on debt relief. First, in terms of our own relationship with Mozambique, we have cancelled all debts with that country; namely, the aid debt and the export credit guarantee debt. Secondly, we are working to persuade other bilateral donors to whom Mozambique is indebted to cancel those debts as well. Thirdly, we are working to encourage the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to do the same. As regards our own budget, we are committed to spending around £70 million in Mozambique over the next two years. In addition, we have given emergency funding and, of course, we shall be open to support Mozambique in the reconstruction and rehabilitation phase once discussions have taken place about priorities.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Bramall set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Palmer to four hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defence
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall rose to call attention to the state of the nation's defences in the light of the Defence White Paper (Cm 4446); and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and noble and gallant friends for allowing me time for this debate on a Cross-Bench day. But I do think that it is a particularly appropriate moment to take stock and, if necessary, call the Government to account on this all-important subject because, after over 1,000 days in office, the Government can no longer excuse major shortcomings on mistakes made by others in the past, and because they have recently issued a White Paper couched in exceedingly self-congratulatory terms, which deserves serious consideration.
Although the White Paper may irritate some of us with its excessively flowery and cliché-riddled language—which does not always amount to much—and the not infrequent claims to have invented the wheel, when experience over many years tells us that much of it is déjà vu but with rather more "spin" on it, this document does realistically describe many of the challenges, often unexpected, which could lie ahead; sets down some sensible priorities; and confirms the Government's justifiable pride in its Strategic Defence Review (SDR)—undoubtedly the best such review over the past 15 years—and their determination to implement it in support of a strong, internationalist and even, apparently at times, interventionist foreign policy. Generally speaking, as the White Paper claims and I have consistently said, the SDR provides a good basis for the future. I hope that the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, will never accuse me of not giving credit where it is due.
The present very real cause for concern, however, is that that implementation is manifestly falling behind those stated intentions. The British Army, backed by the other services, is still playing a major and open-ended part in, "holding the whole thing together" in Bosnia and Kosovo—in the latter case, some might say that it is providing one of the few redeeming features. There are other commitments, in particular in the Middle East and the Falklands and, of course, further commitments are still coming in. Furthermore, substantial force levels are maintained in Germany and in or training for Northern Ireland. All this means that the Armed Forces, and most particularly the Army, are stretched to the limit and, in places, well beyond it, with quite unacceptable repercussions on tour intervals (these are now a fraction of the 24 months that we have been promised year after year); on family separation (a major factor in poor retention) and on training in all three services. That has had a particular effect on high intensity operations. Without those operations, the professional standards on which the whole quality of our Armed Forces depend, will plummet.
All this is seriously exacerbated by a manning crisis, which, on present plans, there is little prospect of resolving until 2005 at the earliest. To make matter
1048
seven worse—and this was manifestly confirmed, in the noble Baroness's absence abroad, by the appalling statistics on shortfall and wastage trotted out in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, of 2nd February—the medical services are in complete disarray. This scandalous situation not only questions our ability to provide adequate medical cover in any future operations worthy of the name, but, because of the acute shortage of military specialists and the inability of the NHS to make special arrangements for the secondary care of military personnel, long waiting lists have increased still further that undermanning and overstretch. Much of this, of course, the Government did inherit. But apart from announcing some high-sounding but none too specific intentions and tinkering with the management structure, they have so far done little to correct things and, by threatening to close the only core hospital left, they may be making things worse.
Moreover, just at the time when they are sensibly and pragmatically being asked to do more, the vital reserve forces have also, for no good military reason, been weakened both in manpower and in man training days—particularly in the infantry, which has provided 40 per cent of all the reservists in the Balkans where the all-important regimental system has been compromised; in the invariably badly-needed engineers and in the military police. All of these are of great value in manpower intensive peacekeeping and "hearts and minds" operations. Even the vital medical reserves, which for obvious reasons have, in theory, been increased, are not meeting their targets: because of pressure from the NHS, volunteer doctors and nurses are just not coming forward.
The noble Baroness does not have to take my word for any of this. She only has to read the detailed, well-researched reports from the all-party Select Committee on Defence in another place, particularly HC158 and 447. These are damning indictments, and 158 specifically gives examples of exercises cancelled, both because of commitments and for budgetary reasons, of resources that are insufficient to reverse the problem of overstretch and also of delays in the equipment programme, which, although generally a healthy one, still has certain weaknesses, such as the urgent need to replace the outdated Clansman communications system and provide an adequate strategic air lift.
Finally, on the debit side, there are a number of what one might loosely describe as "politically correct pressures" bearing down on individuals in the Armed Forces and the chain of command that may increasingly affect the ethos, leadership and professionalism of our forces. Other noble Lords may wish to say more about this, but as I want to keep to my main theme of resources, I shall only say that, as far as concerns lifting the ban on homosexuals, I am pretty relaxed about it. All my experience of command at every level from Platoon to Commander-in-Chief has been that we never really had a problem over this and I believe that a code of conduct for everyone is far more important than the private sexuality of the individual. But the commanding officer must be able

1049
to deal with anyone who breaks that code in any way which he considers prejudicial to the good order and military discipline, without having to look over his shoulder the whole time to see whether he is going to be backed up.
Although the quality of our Armed Forces is still first class and they continue to impress the whole world with their efficiency of performance, the poor retention, including the brain drain of those being pinched by industry and a serious loss of officers in the 27 to 32 age bracket who should be going to the Staff College as a prelude to further advancement, are further indications that everything is not as good as the Government like to make out and that we are storing up huge problems for ourselves in the future if we are still going to expect the forces to do what is currently required of them.
What then should be done as a matter of urgency? Well, in general terms, and as the Select Committee made clear, commitments and resources have to be brought back in line, or we risk stumbling from one crisis to another. Much is made in the White Paper of our forces being able fully to support our foreign policy and act as a force for good in the world. But of course it is doing these very things that is causing the forces to be overstretched—something from which the Strategic Defence Review was intended to free them. But if we are to hold to that restated choice, to be able to intervene as the Government feel obliged in crises and potential crises overseas (and it is, of course, a choice), then the first thing to do is to remove that iniquitous overall cut in resources of 3 per cent compound interest per annum over four years, amounting to an annual cutback of £500 million.
This was arbitrarily imposed as a Parthian shot by the Treasury when the estimable SDR did not throw up the savings that the Treasury hoped for. It was dressed up, of course, on the spurious grounds of efficiency savings with the vaguest possible promises of indirect benefit to the Defence Vote. But taking into account the myriad of saving exercises since 1988 and the steady decline in defence spending over the past 12 years, averaging in real terms 2 to 3 per cent per annum (bringing it from over 5 per cent of the GNP to just over 2 per cent) this has no basis in reality. If it had, if it could be accommodated in the daily round, how come that there are so many areas in the programme that are not meeting their targets because of budgetary restraints, and when the only untoward things that have happened are operations of the sort that the SDR proudly predicted and was designed to meet? No, however it is presented, it is having a debilitating effect over the whole programme and on every vote holder. It makes selective, badly needed improvements in key areas virtually impossible, except at the expense of other equally vital and probably already committed parts of the programme.
It is ridiculous to say that this ill-considered arbitrary action, quite out of keeping with the Government's intention, cannot be reversed. I remember well in the aftermath of the Falklands war when the Treasury was trying the same tactics, this time countermanding an earlier agreement that the replacement of equipment
1050
lost in the war would be paid for out of the contingency fund. A firm stand by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister's own views, which are always essential, were quite enough to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to back down. I hope that this will happen again. This £500 million—£2 billion over four years—is so badly needed. In fact, it is extra resources, not less resources, that are manifestly required. For example, they may well be needed in the recruitment and retention battle to pay non-staged financial incentives worthy of the marketplace for potentially long-serving men and women, particularly for doctors and specialists, so that we can attract and retain able people and have a chance to reach our manpower ceiling that is already set too low.
Extra resources may also be needed to retain the extra Gurkha companies longer than was planned—the only quick way of making an inroad into overstretch. They will undoubtedly be required fully to correct the damage done to the medical services by the Defence Costs Study. I shall leave other noble Lords to deal with this in more detail; but if there are to be significant improvements, which can provide proper professional incentive, motivation of specialists and ability to expand for operational emergencies, it will clearly require more than the £140 million already earmarked.
Extra resources will also be needed to ensure that there is no delay (as currently there is) in implementing the Formation Training Cycle, which is the key element in ensuring that the Army has sufficiently trained forces to meet the SDR's concurrency criteria. They may also be needed to maintain our stocks and keep up the momentum of the equipment programme, so that the new admirable and much-vaunted formations, like the air assault brigade and the additional mechanised brigade, can be fully equipped, sustained and made effective by the target date. Here too, there has been slippage. Additional resources will be required if the promise made to pay £100 million each year on bringing the married quarters up to Grade I standard is to be honoured.
Finally, if, as the Government seem bent on, NATO is to be enlarged and Europe is to develop its own command and control machinery within NATO, these, too, will require considerable resources if they are to mean anything at all, and it would be intolerable if these had to be accommodated within the existing overstretch budget. So the requirement for more, not fewer, resources is wide and urgent, since in all these areas targets are wholly or partly going by default.
If Ministers are to be true to their words and claims and intentions set out in the SDR, now the White Paper, the Government must start to put more money where their mouth is, or at least not be prepared to put up with doing less with less money, as seems to be happening. I beg them to follow the advice of the Select Committee, when concluding that the MoD budget,
"gave rise to serious concern".
and to rebalance that budget upwards in the present spending review, with particular regard, in the short term, to removing that 3 per cent punitive cut.
However worthy the Government's intentions may be, and I accept that they are, to degrade in this uncertain world the strengths and operational capability of our Armed Forces below what they themselves have established as necessary, by accident—because of the omnipotence of the Treasury—is just as culpable as doing it by design or on purpose, something of which I would never accuse them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for introducing this Motion and talking about the White Paper. He made a typically forceful speech. He will no doubt expect that I may disagree with him on some aspects of what he said, but if I do so it is as a subaltern to his former company commander—which, indeed, the noble and gallant Lord was—with the greatest respect but in the knowledge that the subaltern usually won the argument.
I welcome the White Paper. I have a certain sympathy with what the noble and gallant Lord said about the language in the paper. However, generally speaking, it seems to me to mark a good step in the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review. In passing, I would say that when I sat in the place where the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, now sits for the Opposition, I was rather sceptical about the idea of a defence review. We had had Options for Change—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will remember that—and the defence costs study. I took the general view that we had had enough and that the Armed Forces should not be subjected to yet another major defence review. However, as a result of what has happened, I have become converted and I agree with the generous assessment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that the SDR was a success. The question now is: how do we put the SDR and the conclusions of the SDR into proper practice?
I cannot disagree with the noble and gallant Lord about overstretch. I talked about overstretch from the Opposition Front Benches in all the time that I was there. We have all talked about overstretch for as long as I can remember and for as long as I have been in this House. As long as there are former Chiefs of the Defence Staff in the House I have no doubt that we shall continue to talk about overstretch in the Armed Forces.
The conclusion of the SDR—which the noble and gallant Lord brought out, but, I thought, perhaps insufficiently forcefully—was that you cannot reduce the strength of the Armed Forces without reducing the commitment. If you do one without the other, you are lost. It seems to me that you will have to look either at increasing the strength of the Armed Forces in the present situation, or reducing the commitment.
In that respect I draw attention to something in the White Paper which I am sure my noble friend will be able to answer. I was rather surprised to see that we had overseas interests due to the international nature
1052
of trade that affected our defence capability. I find it a rather odd concept in the modern world that trade should be accompanied, as it were, by gunboats, or by helicopters or whatever. After all, e-commerce is not, as far as I know, subject to normal defence procedures. I should be grateful if my noble friend could help me on that point.
I also noted that our history gave rise to commitments to overseas territories. I understand all the arguments and, in her previous incarnation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my noble friend dealt with some of those overseas territories. However, I am not entirely certain that we should not be thinking in the long term about exactly what our commitments there should be.
I welcome the arrangements for defence procurement. We have had enormous problems with this over the years. I have made many speeches criticising the previous government on the mess that they made of procurement. We are now seeing the results; for example, rifles that jam, ships that cannot leave port, upgraded Tornados that cannot launch the right missiles and so on. I believe that the Government have grasped this and with the new structure of defence procurement will be able to cure these problems. Obviously there is a long lead time with these matters and we cannot expect everything to happen overnight.
I also welcome the emphatic response to the NATO problem, that our defence must be modelled around NATO and that anything we do in Europe must be conditional on subordination to NATO. That is not just because the Russian threat is not ended, although that is a possibility, but because NATO is the only viable, multi-force operation with command and control procedures that we all understand, and which work. Anything that consists of a European army adopting new command and control procedures would seem to me to be fantasy land.
However, I support a European involvement. I support the idea that the European Union should be able at some point in the future, and on occasions which we cannot predict, to intervene when the United States decides that it does not want to intervene. Such occasions may arise. Provided that it is all subordinated to the NATO prerogative, I would be in favour of that. Nevertheless there are those who say that we must be more independent in a European Union army. That would mean creating a new satellite intelligence system and creating a new heavy airlift capacity. The amounts of money involved in that are absolutely gigantic.
Before I end I take your Lordships through the percentage of gross domestic product that our major European partners spend on defence. The 1997 figures are the latest ones I could get. The United Kingdom spends 2.7 per cent of its gross domestic product on defence; France spends 3 per cent; Germany 1.6 per cent and Italy 2 per cent. What stands out there to me is the figure for Germany of 1.6 per cent. If there is to be a European force of 50,000 or 60,000 troops in the field with support services, it seems to me that the Germans have to contribute much more to that budget than they are doing, or are likely to do at the moment.

1053
I believe that this White Paper is a transitional one. It has moved the SDR forward a little. Other White Papers will move the SDR forward further. I congratulate the Government on what has so far been a rather successful run.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is right to draw attention to our international obligations. In considering our own defence forces we should bear in mind that the two countries which have done more than any other since the end of the First World War to try to maintain the peace of the world are the United States and the United Kingdom.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has done a valuable service. He has raised the question of our reserve forces. We could not have played our part in winning either the First or the Second World War without strong reserve forces, especially the Territorial Army in which I served from June 1938 until July 1945.
Until last year it was easy to discover details of the units and the specialist efforts of the Territorial Army. This year, it has not been so easy. The noble and gallant Lord referred to a number of issues arising from the Defence White Paper. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the comments that he made.
We know from the Strategic Defence Review 1998 that the Government decided that the Territorial Army should be reduced to about 40,000, and it has been. But that is too small, especially as its members are now required to supplement the efforts of the Regular Army when serving abroad. A number have served in the Balkans, including my noble friend Lord Attlee.
The Strategic Defence Review this year implied that the Territorial Army would be made more useable and that it would be better resourced and better trained. But is that so? A competent Territorial Army commander would have issued his programme for the training year beginning on 1st April this year many weeks ago because it takes time to compile. That being the case, can the Minister explain why the man-training day budget for some TA logistic units has been cut by 20 per cent, as hinted at by the noble and gallant Lord? What signal does that send to Territorial Army soldiers in units that have been cut and, to some extent, reorganised? I should mention in passing that my noble friend Lord Attlee is unfortunately unable to give the House information on this point because he holds a command position in the Territorial Army. I hope that the Government will decide that the Territorial Army must be expanded. In the event of another major war we would be at a disadvantage, given its present modest size.
Last year the functions and duties of the TA were briefly but reasonably well described. However, it is impossible now to discover the strength of the various branches of the TA. I hope that from now on we shall be given more information.
1054
The only other matter I have time to mention concerns the conflict between human rights and service discipline. It is a matter which, in the Government's interests, must be resolved. There will be the occasional crisis if the Government continue to fail to ask Parliament to legislate. It is no good leaving it merely to the advice of a Minister, as the noble Baroness suggested on one occasion when this matter was raised.
The issue is simple. The exercise of human rights by any member of the Armed Forces under, for example, Article 10 of the convention—which is set out in the Schedule to the 1998 Act—could easily conflict with good order and military discipline. Article 10 grants the right to freedom of expression "without interference by public authority". I emphasise those words; they are in the article. Therefore a private soldier could criticise a general publicly and could not be stopped.
The noble Baroness challenged my interpretation of Article 11 when I asked a Question on 22nd February. She rightly drew attention to the last sentence of Article 11, which states:
"This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces".
That is not the whole answer. If no steps are taken to prevent the exercise of these rights, chaos will result. It means that a matter will have to go to court, which, bearing in mind the uncertainty of the wording, may or may not grant an immediate injunction. In any event, even if the court grants an immediate injunction, the matter will have to be decided by the High Court, and it could take weeks before a final decision is made. The Government really must do something about this while the Armed Forces Discipline Bill is in another place.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure are all your Lordships, to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for enabling the House to discuss this theme at this time. I was also most interested to hear the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Renton. I am sure that the Minister will respond to them.
To take an analogy, in some ways it is almost as difficult to judge the defence needs and the state of defences of the nation against this White Paper as it is to discuss and analyse the real state of the health of a company based on its annual report. Indeed, there are some similarities between the White Paper and an annual report—some of which are physical and obvious. The White Paper is quite a glossy publication: it is strong on photographs and some of its language has been described as somewhat bland. Nevertheless, it is an extraordinarily important document and, in some ways, a rather disturbing one.

1055
It is disturbing because, among other things, it is very explicit on the objectives and the needs for defence, some of which have been referred to. They are writ very long indeed. Let me take one example—the obligation on this country in defence terms,
"to act as a force for good in the world".
When the Prime Minister spoke in Chicago earlier this year about the moral imperative to act where there has been systematic abuse of human rights, he clearly envisaged in that context the potential defence dimension to such action. If we take only that one objective and set it against what we know about the resources, there is clearly a potential mismatch or overstretch between them. I should be grateful if, when the Minister responds, she will comment on how the Government see the balance of priorities between the objectives for which the defence resources of the nation are to be committed. They are in themselves a universe of obligation.
The concerns about overstretch, to which the noble and gallant Lord and others referred, have been well documented, discussed and debated, both in the other place and in the media. I shall comment on one concern—the challenge of retaining people serving in the Armed Forces. The recruitment advertising campaign that the Government and the MoD have been running has had considerable success. However, if one pours people in at the top while losing them out of the bottom all the time, the overstretch problem will remain. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House more specifically what measures are planned to improve the retention rate within the Armed Forces.
I drew an analogy with an annual report, which is, of course, a report at one moment in time. Time and events move on. Likewise, the White Paper presents a perspective at one moment in time. Even since its publication events have moved. I should like to headline two matters and seek a response from the Minister.
There is reference in two or three paragraphs of the White Paper to the situation regarding the ESDI. Earlier this week, I noted an interesting article by the Secretary-General of NATO, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. The noble Lord wrote with considerable urgency that Kosovo had revealed an imbalance in capabilities between the European Union and the United States which was,
"neither fair nor politically sustainable".
I have just returned from a visit to the United States. It is clear that, although this matter is not top of the agenda in terms of the domestic elections now under way, there is real irritation and impatience, certainly in the media, with the inability of the Europeans to get their act together in terms of "the bang for the buck". The truth is that our spending collectively on defence amounts to 60 per cent of America's and for that we receive 15 per cent of the capability. That is not a sustainable position and something must be done about it. I should be pleased to hear from the Minister the Government's further thoughts on the ESDI.
1056
One paragraph of the White Paper refers specifically to relations between NATO and Russia. Since its publication, we have heard the present Russian leader talking to Sir David Frost on television and explaining that, on the whole, Russia might quite like to belong to NATO. That statement is set against the background of the appalling saga of events in Chechnya. If ever there was abuse of human rights, surely we saw an illustration of it in that dreadful conflict. As the Prime Minister prepares for a visit and more detailed discussions with Mr Putin, it is important to hear from the Government what their thinking is and what we intend to say to Russia.
The White Paper is important. In some ways it is reassuring; in some ways it is disturbing. It must always be remembered that an annual report invites investors to put their money on the line. In a sense the White Paper invites the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces to put their lives on the line. It is therefore critical that resources and obligations are matched.
There is one powerful point of reassurance in the White Paper. We are told that while we may be somewhat short of resources on land, on sea and in the air, no less than one-fifth of all the civil servants of the United Kingdom now work for the Ministry of Defence. We are not short behind the desk!
3.43 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for instigating this debate. The Strategic Defence Review was praised and welcomed. It spelt out intentions and, in places, aspirations. It is reasonable now to examine one or two of the key planks in the review and assess progress.
Sadly, the 1999 White Paper revealed some serious shortfalls in implementing the SDR. It is also very complacent. I have counted between the two covers over 30 instances of the "We are jolly well going to take the bull by the horns" sort of remark. In the Secretary of State's introduction we learn that,
"The Armed Forces are already exploiting opportunities for using new technology in operations".
and,
"We will be continuing to look for opportunities for further joined-up working".
Elsewhere, we are told,
"We are already working to reduce our vulnerability",
and,
"Our approach is to establish within the EU what is required to properly support decision making".
I had hoped for more positive results.
More irritating are dubious references to further funds having been allocated. I offer a prime example of spin:
"Additional funding has also been made available to restore deficiencies in weapons systems and spares of critical equipment, and the enhancements to the RAF's deployed sustainability will be introduced progressively in the period to 2006".

1057
The defence budget has not been increased—rather, the reverse is the case. So what has suffered in order to find those extra resources for the Royal Air Force's needs? Six years to restore deficiencies and spares of critical equipment, anyway, seems inexcusable. Young men and women are required to go and fight for us. The Government take six years to catch up with critical operational needs. It is just not good enough.
Another reference to additional funds talks of £140 million for the Defence Medical Services, But if press reports are to be believed, the provision for the medical services has been cut back. What has suffered because £140 million has been transferred from elsewhere; the RAF enhancements maybe?
I had hoped that we could learn more, not only about what has been thought about and planned, but what new improvements have been completed and are working satisfactorily. The paucity of examples—except, I am pleased to note, in the personnel field—is depressing.
As the Prime Minister has written in a different context:
"the job of government is to meet the needs and aspirations of the people. That depends on deciding on the right policies, and then delivering them effectively".
I heard President Thabo Mbeki sum up the latter part of that aspiration rather more succinctly in these words:
"It is not done until it is done".
So what have the Government done about the strategic airlift requirement? It was identified, and rightly, in the SDR as an absolutely key capability, so urgently needed that the Royal Air Force had to give up more than three squadrons-worth of
operational fast jet fighters to help to pay for it. But where are the four C-17 aircraft or their equivalent for our short-term strategic airlift needs? Can the Minister tell us the position?
The much heralded Joint Rapid Reaction Force is misnamed. It is unable to live up to its "Rapid" title, and the White Paper admits as much. A key plank of the Strategic Defence Review has yet to materialise. Will the two replacement carriers (another key plank) suffer a similar fate? Meanwhile, we have seen the Government's defence policies in Kosovo, in the Middle East and elsewhere relying more and more on the deployment and application of offensive air power. We should not have given up, with no viable offset, all those fast jet fighter aircraft which could do far more to sustain Her Majesty's Government's foreign and defence policies in the expeditionary overseas actions on which we have had to embark in the past few years.
Meanwhile, without strategic lift, we are not well positioned to be a worldwide "force for good". What an object lesson we have had over Mozambique. Those Puma helicopters were not even on standby for a stripped down move, let alone ordered to move until Tuesday of last week. By Thursday, they were on their way. That was a remarkable example of 33 Squadron's fine leadership and motivation. The whole House should congratulate those fine airmen and airwomen.
1058
Despite my criticisms of the White Paper, I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which she has invariably and so helpfully responded to points made in defence debates. I am sure that today will be no exception. Her busy schedule has been badly skewed by the timing of today's debate. As Convenor, I can but express my apologies to her that this Cross-Bench day has interfered with her visit on important national business to the Gulf. We are truly grateful to have the lead exponent for the Ministry of Defence in this House to respond.
Before I sit down, I wish to draw attention to the recent retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, from the post of honorary inspector general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. For 10 years, from January 1990 to January this year, the noble Lord has devoted himself wholeheartedly to the interests of the RAAF. Throughout a series of defence reviews he has sustained the morale and efficiency of the many dedicated men and women who voluntarily serve their country in a great variety of important fields. The noble Lord has encouraged them. He has been a line advocate for their interests. He has had the reward of seeing those particular reserve forces being allowed to grow in capability and strength. His is a fine achievement. The noble Lord will long be remembered with affection and gratitude for all that he did. I am sure that he will not lose touch with the auxiliaries. He will always be their most welcome guest at any time of the day or night, in the field or in the mess. He deserves your Lordships' congratulations and good wishes.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I said in 1992 that Russian strategy was clearly to end up with a lean, mean army; a defence industrial capacity drawing in Western technology and maintaining its nuclear capacity; and a political climate calculated to disperse NATO's defence capacity. Significant conversion would not take place. The defence complex would prove impossible to dismantle. We would end with a Russia possessing the most sophisticated weapons and a major arms exporter, with inevitable consequences for arms proliferation. I asked then whether we should be facing Russia with a seriously depleted defence capacity, industrial and military. I ask that question again today.
Meanwhile, the Russians succeeded in destroying COCOM and gaining wide access through partnerships to Western technology. They are only now signing the START II treaty. They signed the chemical warfare convention only in 1997 and have as yet destroyed nothing.
What is the Russian defence position today? Russia is increasing its budget for defence procurement by 50 per cent this year. Total expenditure on defence and security now accounts for one-quarter of the federal budget and spending on national defence is to go up by 27 billion dollars. The budget for the navy has doubled. Meanwhile, Russia has exported more than 3 billion dollars-worth of arms in the past year, usually

1059
as part of a package of military aircraft, helicopters, ships and so on. Russia now has 1,600 defence plants employing 2 million people.
India, to which Russia sold the cryogenic rocket motors that enabled India to become a military nuclear power—and whose navy, army and air force are largely equipped by Russia—is taking delivery of yet more armaments. Time does not allow me to go into detail. Russia continues to target and supply Malaysia, and even today Indonesia, and not least China, with military aircraft, helicopters, submarines and destroyers. Now that sanctions have been lifted, Russia is to sell MiG 31s and multiple launch rocket systems to Libya. Russia has renewed its military agreement with Cyprus and of course continues its close military links with Syria. Russia is about to build nuclear power stations in Iran, with two reactors, and India, and will help Libya to reactivate its nuclear power station.
At home, Russia has successfully tested yet again its Topol M intercontinental ballistic missile, and Russia's strategic missiles troops have 20 new Topol M missile launchers on combat duty.
What has that to do with the UK's defence strategy, since it does not yet include any indication of a specific military threat to NATO—though the new military doctrine allowing the use of tactical nuclear weapons in local and regional conflicts is disquieting? The drive to spend more on defence procurement not only brings in money but creates a whole network of valuable relationships and points of influence in the Middle and Far East and in Latin America—and is helping to create all the conditions for the asymmetric threat. That drive is also enabling Russia to build fully equipped modern strategic forces and a powerful nuclear capacity. They will not need to be used. They will simply be there—able to create pressure when required. Moreover, Russia will be able to act through its many surrogates and allies, from Libya to China.
What will our situation be? Countering a strategic attack on NATO is one of the defence missions and the most important—but it is being treated on the old 10-year rule principle that led to our woeful situation in 1939. Then, as now, the Treasury was in the driving seat. It is comfortably argued that we shall foresee any threat in time to prepare, but by 2005 at the latest Russia will enjoy a formidable power to threaten while we shall be unable credibly to deter.
Because of the Government's inability to recognise the need to match resources to ever-growing commitments and the failure to stick to their own SDR, the Armed Forces are seriously overstretched and disgracefully under-funded. We are even dependent on Russian Antonovs to meet our strategic airlift requirements if we wish to deploy anywhere—including Mozambique—and our procurement programme is seriously underspent and overdue. Why?
Mr Putin is not a Yeltsin. He is a man who will know how to threaten, infiltrate and manipulate. I find it less than reassuring that he has welcomed the news of the
1060
formation of that grand organization, the European Defence and Security Identity. Nothing could suit Russia better than to see NATO assets committed to some open-ended EU venture just when they are needed to deter. That is when the Russians will probe NATO on, perhaps, the Baltic states. We are told that is not a European army but that,
"the bulk of military capacities for planning and conducting any EU-led operation will be drawn from the resources available for NATO, but the EU would be making the decisions on military matters and would take political control of crisis management operations".
The main representation on that issue at the moment is political, not military.
Our 15,000 men are to come from our NATO troops. We are already pinned down in Kosovo for what could be 10 years and we have been in Bosnia for six years. We are still in the Gulf and in Northern Ireland. The theory is that the EDSI will force other European countries to spend seriously on defence and to commit troops. How? Of the 2 million troops theoretically under arms, 700,000 are conscripts. Europe, other than France, could only produce a miserable 2 per cent of the troops in Kosovo. We and the French will bear the burden, for I do not believe the others will ever produce much more than a handful of admirals and stretcher-bearers. They cannot even produce policemen, for God's sake! I do not think that exercise will go far to reassure the Americans.
There was and is nothing wrong with some defence diplomacy—it is an honourable thing—provided there are the resources to pay for it. But to make extensive political commitments, then prove unable to meet them for lack of money and men—as could well happen if the UN takes up our promises in the Memorandum of Understanding, already an impossible commitment—seems likely to prove counter-productive. Far more important, mounting political commitments are making it impossible to train the forces in the ability to wage high-intensity warfare, which is their prime military task and one that cannot be achieved at the last minute.
Our defence forces are not primarily a political weapon, and should not be. Neither the Treasury nor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are the right people to make the strategy. Action must be taken now, before it is too late, to address the military tasks and needs of our defence forces.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am especially grateful to my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall for introducing this debate with such force and eloquence. Even as we speak, the Public Accounts Committee in another place is examining a recent report on defence procurement by the National Audit Office. This debate gives me the opportunity to return to a subject on which I have spoken many times in your Lordships' House, for which I do not apologise. It does not have to do with some of the weightier matters of strategy and resources that have been dealt with by other speakers. I would like to have followed them in talking

1061
about the continuing mismatch between resources and commitments, but instead I will return to a subject that will be familiar to some of your Lordships.
The report of the National Audit Office, which was published last month, is entitled Accepting Equipment Off-Contract and Into Service; in other words, procurement. That is a comprehensive and valuable report which covers a very wide area of this aspect of policy. There is only one page of that report to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships. For those who may want to read the report, the reference is page 36. That gives a fascinating and alarming insight into the story of the Chinook Mk2 helicopter, especially the computer software called FADEC which regulates the flow of fuel to the aircraft's engines.
The report sketches the history of the helicopter. It points out that when the Chinook Mk1 was updated FADEC was installed, and in order for it to be given an airworthiness certificate it had to go to the Defence Evaluation and Research Establishment at Boscombe Down. That establishment carried out tests on the aircraft. In 1993 it advised the Ministry of Defence that it could not give it an airworthiness certificate because of,
"the unquantifiable risk associated with the unverifiable nature of the FADEC software".
It concluded that it was necessary to rewrite the software. The software was rewritten and in 1998, five years later, the aircraft was given an airworthiness certificate.
All of that may sound like a fairly routine piece of military procurement, except for one matter. In the period between the refusal of Boscombe Down to give the aircraft an airworthiness certificate and 1998 when the certificate was issued something happened, and we all know what it was. A Chinook Mk2 crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland killing the aircrew and 25 members of the Northern Ireland intelligence community. No one knows why that aircraft crashed because there was no black box flight recorder and no survivor. Nobody can know what happened.
It has been said many times since by the Ministry of Defence and its officials that there was no evidence of technical or mechanical malfunction. That may be so, but it does not mean that there was no malfunction; only that there is no evidence of it. I do not claim that the FADEC computer system was responsible for the crash. As a former consultant to Boeing, I know a little about these matters. I am second to none in my admiration for the professionalism and integrity of that great corporation. I merely say that there is a possibility, however remote, that some kind of malfunction contributed to the crash.
A Royal Air Force board of inquiry was set up to look into the crash. Initially, the board said that there was no reason to attribute human failings to the crash. That was endorsed
by the station commander concerned. It was further supported by the fatal accident inquiry in Scotland which said that there was no evidence of human failure. It was only when the verdict was reviewed by two senior officers in the
1062
Ministry of Defence that a verdict of gross negligence was entered against the two pilots, Flight Lieutenants Cook and Tapper.
I must remind noble Lords, as I have done many times in the past, that Queen's Regulations for the Royal Air Force, which are carefully drafted to protect people who are suspected of negligence, even when they are alive, provide strong protection for the rights of dead aircrew. The regulations provide that deceased aircrew should not be found guilty of negligence unless there is "no doubt whatsoever" about the causes of the accident. Yet these dead pilots were found guilty of gross negligence. It really will not do for the Ministry of Defence to keep on saying that it will not revisit the verdict unless further evidence comes to its notice. There is no further evidence, and there cannot be; it is all there, including the report of the National Audit Office.
I know that this is a familiar story to the noble Baroness who has acted in an honourable and sensitive way, as she does in all her dealings with these matters. I gave her notice that I intended to raise this matter today. I must now ask the noble Baroness a question that I have asked before without receiving a satisfactory answer. In the light of all the evidence, and the recent report by the National Audit Office, can the Minister now say that in the minds of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence there is no doubt whatsoever about the causes of this accident? If the Minister replies that there is no doubt whatsoever I should like to know on what evidence that is based, given the fact that the original Royal Air Force inquiry and fatal accident inquiry gave no indication of human failure. Is there any evidence which was not available to those two inquiries? If so, we have the right to know what it is. On the other hand, if the Minister cannot give us an unequivocal and unqualified "yes" in response to my question, we are entitled to conclude that there is some doubt, in which case the verdict of gross negligence should be set aside.
As matters now stand, the verdict has cast doubt upon the reputation of two bright, brave young officers with all the anguish and hurt that that has brought to their families and friends. More importantly, I believe that it has left a stain upon the honour of the great service to which they belonged. That stain will remain until the Government do something to remove it. I look forward to the Minister's reply at the end of this debate.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, because of the time limitations. The House is indebted to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for his forceful speech, which touched on overstretch and deficiency. The
overstretch is real; the deficiency is Europe's. I have been deeply disturbed by a good deal of the press coverage of defence matters in recent weeks. It reminds me of the time 15 or more years ago when, accompanied by a distinguished Conservative Member of the other place—not the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, to whom tribute has

1063
rightly been paid by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley—I visited a major Royal Air Force station which accommodated squadrons then committed to act on behalf of NATO while the Cold War was at its height.
To my astonishment, I discovered that the then government had imposed enormously tight flying restrictions upon those squadrons, so much so that it seemed doubtful whether they could reach NATO's current requirements despite their frontline role. I recall saying to the station commander that the restrictions imposed by the then government meant that less flying time was available than had previously been available years before to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve at weekends. I said to my parliamentary colleague that when I returned to Westminster I would table a Question, which I did. A journalist from one of the popular newspapers said that he believed it to be a red hot story. I agreed but said I doubted whether the particular newspaper would publish it. The Question was asked and the Answer was given but there was not a word about it in the press.
In recent weeks we have read some preposterous stories about the present Government. For example, reference has been made to Bowman. I believe that that story is worthy of consideration by the House. The Government inherited the communication equipment programme for the Armed Forces, but it was about six years late and the structure of the contract was in chaos. My noble friend may wish to comment on that. We have been told that the rifle issued to British forces is unsatisfactory, but that has been standard equipment for goodness knows how long, certainly as long ago as the Falklands War.
We also learn that the Royal Air Force has no capacity to bomb accurately. Perhaps my noble friend will also comment on that. This is related to the transformation of the GR1 Tornado strike aircraft into the GR4. With the rapid development of electronic warfare and communications equipment, when the GR4 is fully operational it should have the capacity to deliver a bomb smartly and accurately. The Air Force has not suddenly decided that it does not have that capacity. Jaguar aircraft and the Tornado GR1s which have not yet been converted are capable of performing with skill, accuracy and dedication, as they did in the Kosovo conflict.
Some astonishing stories in the press demean our forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, rightly said that our forces have been bearing the honour of Europe upon their shoulders in former Yugoslavia and other parts of the world. That leads me to the European reference which I think is appropriate in this debate. Before coming to this House, I have spent more time in debates in the Western European Union on European security and defence than anyone since the Council of Europe and WEU were formed. I found them frustrating, irritating and annoying. From time to time one became enraged at the way in which many of our European partners were demanding commitments and interventions
1064
which they themselves were incapable of providing. They would provide stretcher-bearers, ambulances and traffic policemen but not combat capacity: that was for the United Kingdom. Since trade follows the flag—my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel may not always agree in saying that honour must be properly served—and since our Armed Forces are of a high quality, we cannot stand back and watch horror and barbarity proliferate.
However, that situation has been going on for a long time. As Europe has developed its political appetite for the second pillar—to operate as a defence institution—it is time for Europe to recognise that it must start making an adequate contribution. That point has been valid, and some of us have been arguing it, for the past decade. The pity was that before 1997 the previous administration was quite prepared to see Europe pour scorn on, and put a lid on, any criticism offered about the European contribution. I have personal experience of that from studies of the capabilities of Western European air forces when the Council of Ministers prevented proper consideration of that important matter.
It is time we recognised that with the development of the second pillar we need to see retention of that part of the Western European Union's role which provides for an international parliamentary forum where attention could be drawn to inadequacies and inefficiencies—and poppycock. I became sick of listening to the Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers of a number of Western European countries who were always eager to see British forces sent in. I remember saying to one Italian Minister that the only contribution I would prefer to see would be a translation into Italian of Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem The Charge of the Light Brigade in order that it should accompany whatever contribution the Italians were making.
We have to recognise that there will be change in Europe: that it is right for Europe to act maturely in international affairs. But Europe must accept that it cannot rely on Britain to continue to bear for a long period an unfair share of the burdens which that provides. The point was illustrated by a question I asked in the House last Monday. In relation to Mozambique I referred to the need for heavy-lift aircraft, heavy-lift helicopters, and heavy-lift capacity. But we have to accept that the British taxpayer is entitled to demand that we seek to insist that in Europe there are fair shares within the second pillar, if that is to have any meaning.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for instituting this debate. I am somewhat disappointed that we have only two and a half hours to discuss what seems to me an enormously important subject. I wonder what message that sends to our Armed Forces. I hope that the Minister will find time for a longer debate at some stage in the future on important issues such as the European security and defence initiative and other issues.

1065
I have time to concentrate on only one issue. I should like to add my strong support to those who referred to the critical importance of delivering the Strategic Defence Review. I, too, share some of the criticisms about the complacency which I felt came through in the White Paper. I know that that view was shared by some members of the Armed Forces.
It is worth reminding ourselves—some noble Lords have touched on it—what the Armed Forces have been through since the end of the Cold War. We had Options for Change which promised "smaller but better" and, frankly, was never delivered. We then had Front Line First, or the defence cost study which had some good things in it but also did great damage to our medical services. Throughout that time the Armed Forces were continually engaged. We had the Gulf War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and now Kosovo.
As many have said, the Strategic Defence Review was well received. It was credible. It provided a blueprint for the future. There is no doubt that it raised high hopes among the Armed Forces. Although each service—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, touched on this—undoubtedly had to give up some significant elements of their fighting capability, the overall cohesion of the package was well received. If the basic Strategic Defence Review is not delivered—I do not say in its entirety; one always knows one has to trim things at the edges—and the capability of the Armed Forces outlined in it, I believe that the Armed Forces will become increasingly sceptical that yet again promises have not been met.
It is clear that we are having to delay the arrival of some new equipment into service. We are having to delay or defer other necessary improvements. We are having to cancel exercises; and we cannot fund the SDR at the present level of funding. I endorse strongly the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, about the 3 per cent efficiency savings which have to be found year on year for four years. Unless that 3 per cent savings initiative is removed, the problems of funding the SDR will become even more acute. That must have implications for morale, lead to increased scepticism, major problems for retention and reduce the fighting effectiveness of our Armed Forces. It is easy to talk about fighting effectiveness. We are saying that we are prepared to send men and women on operations not as well equipped and trained as they should be.
Finally, I wish to talk about training. One of the key assumptions of the Strategic Defence Review—it was an important assumption—was that we would retain the capability to take part in high intensity conflict; in other words, we would be prepared to go to war and to fight. Once one loses that capability, it takes years to get it back. Even on some of the peace enforcement/peace support operations, we need that capability. The Strategic Defence Review made it quite clear that our Armed Forces were to be equipped, manned and trained so that they could take part in a wide range of operational commitments: from defence diplomacy at the bottom end through traditional peacekeeping to the more complex, difficult and
1066
dangerous operations of peace enforcement and peace support; and, at the top end of the spectrum of conflict, taking part in high intensity conflict.
That places heavy training and leadership demands on the Armed Forces. There is no doubt that a number of our senior commanders are deeply concerned about the erosion in training standards, in particular at the top end of the spectrum of conflict. Some have said to me, "We are not as well trained as we were before the Gulf War". Again that must have implications on the Strategic Defence Review and morale, retention and fighting effectiveness. In short, if the Government are to deliver the Strategic Defence Review, the defence budget is too small and we shall not be able to meet the aspirations of the Armed Forces.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for introducing the debate today. Your Lordships have already heard that there is serious concern over the defence budget. Unless the matter can be addressed with some urgency the SDR promises may not be met and our Armed Forces will become less capable, less efficient, less well trained. They will be fewer in number and operating with less up-to-date equipment.
During your Lordships' Defence Group visit, a consistent theme was presented to us about the worries and effects that the 3 per cent efficiency savings are having on the Armed Forces. Without a more reasonable budget and more resources, our present Armed Forces will not remain capable, well trained and efficient.
Currently, the Army has just under 30 per cent of its staff either on operations, recovering from them or training for them. However, in the middle of last year that figure was 47 per cent. That is overcommitment nearly beyond the bounds of belief. It is essential that deployment levels are kept to within the laid down provisions of SDR.
The critically high deployment figure has created unprecedented turbulence. In the Army it has slowed down the formation of 12 Mechanised Brigade and has prevented the "formation readiness cycle" from starting. That, in turn, has led to near impossible overstretch, the well recognised enemy of retention.
Overcommitment causes undermanning and that, in turn, leads to overstretch, which is the main factor contributing to lack of retention in all three services. There are only two ways of dealing with overcommitment; either commitments are reduced or more money and resources are found to create more units.
The Army has made a significant effort at recruiting but is still some 5,600 below strength. The cost of training and keeping a soldier over a period of three years amounts to some £60,000. It is therefore essential that every effort is made to retain junior ranks for longer than three years. That would save money overall and ensure that the country had a better trained

1067
and more experienced Army. It is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence to approach retention with a far more robust attitude.
I believe that the MoD has been mean with the proposed lump sum bonuses for accumulated separated service. The bonus should be £5,000 and not £1,000 as suggested. If such a payment were implemented, the rate of retention might well increase dramatically. Although the introduction of 20 minutes of free telephone time a week and the e-mail system are much appreciated, would it not be possible for servicemen and women to be issued with free mobile telephones when deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions which they would return when leaving those theatres?
Retention would also be helped by ensuring that there is no
slippage in the dates set for accommodation improvements. The sum of £1.8 billion has been committed to modernisation of single accommodation and more is required. But the date for completion of the project has slipped to 2005. Why is it necessary to spend millions and millions of pounds on new barracks in the United Kingdom to house regiments from Germany when those troops could remain there at no extra cost to the current budget?
There is concern too about married quarters. Following a 100 per cent stocktake of the estate it became clear that an additional £112 million was required for modernisation and the completion date slipped from 2003 to 2005. In addition, a further £12 million has been cut from the Defence Housing Estate budget. That upsets families and is no help in encouraging people to remain in the services.
In the Army, more than 70 per cent of jobs are open to women, with 7,648 enlisted and the majority working well and efficiently. Many years ago, two women staff captains worked for me. They could not have been more efficient. However, I want to sound a word of warning. It would be utterly wrong if women were allowed to enlist into the combat units of the Royal Armoured Corps and the infantry. It would make units less efficient: it would also become much more difficult to retain the all-important will to win the battle at all costs. In any event, the close confines of a closed down armoured vehicle for days on end could not be more unsuitable for women. The evidence to support my opinion has been drawn from a study carried out in the US. It found that American women in combat units reduced combat readiness, effectiveness and unit cohesion.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that if our troops are not trained properly for war fighting, we cannot expect to win battles in the future. Some 39 exercises, including the Royal Marines' Arctic exercise, were cancelled last year. Most cancellations were due to Kosovo, but some were due to budgetary constraints. If overcommitment of operations affects training to such an alarming extent, it is surely an indication that we may not have our SDR force level deployment correct. The cancellation of overseas exercises, such
1068
as in Belize and Kenya, is a disappointment to servicemen and women and is another factor that does not help retention.
I want to reiterate that serious lack of resources will prevent the SDR promises being implemented and, if that happens, many servicemen and women will leave. That will result in poorly trained Armed Forces, under strength and badly equipped.
Furthermore, political correctness could undermine the military ethos which stems largely from traditions within the regimental system. The Armed Services must not be regarded as civilians in uniform and be subject to civilian management procedures. They need a separate and different way of life and clear military discipline. Any damage to that military ethos will prevent the right kind of person enlisting into the Armed Forces of the Crown to provide protection for our freedom. It is our duty to guard against, and be alert to, any indications that might damage that special ethos. We must ensure that it continues to thrive.
Finally, I pay tribute to members of our courageous and loyal Armed Forces who have shown that they are the very best. They are an example to, and the envy of, the rest of the world. We should be justly proud of our servicemen and women. The whole nation owes them a large debt of gratitude.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are, of course, all grateful to my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall for raising this interesting and vital issue of the Defence White Paper. I remember the noble and gallant Lord showing me his maiden speech before he made it. It was absolutely first-rate, as all noble Lords told him. As this is not his maiden speech, he may receive fewer
letters of congratulation, but his speech today is every bit as relevant and forceful. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for rearranging her busy schedule to be with us today. She always bothers to listen to and answer our many complaints.
Those of us who belong to the Defence Study Group and take an interest in the defence of our realm are like a chorus of sad Cassandras. During the past 14 years, since I have been a member, governments have come and gone, walls have collapsed in Berlin, wars have been fought and the Soviet communist empire has disappeared. But we are all, alas, singing the same song.
Our Armed Forces are being reduced and reduced and reduced. To see the thin red line, you probably need a magnifying glass, if not a microscope. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, must have very good eyesight. There is no longer enough time between front-line unaccompanied tours. The magical figure of 24 months is becoming more mythical than real. Added to that are the very real worries which are being imposed upon our forces by the European Union. If an officer is unable to give an order in case he may be sued because of the possible dangers involved, we shall not be able to have any Armed Forces at all. Ships, guns and planes are all dangerous things—so is peacekeeping and war—but we are not talking about computer games.

1069
The second point that I would make briefly is about weapons. In order to be an effective armed force you must have weapons which actually work. We have heard endlessly of the rifles which for some reason or another stick. It is perhaps almost better to have no weapon at all than to be issued with a weapon which does not work.
Thirdly, there is the question of families. Here there are three distinct issues. The first is the separation caused by unaccompanied front-line tours, about which I have already spoken. Anyone whose husband is in the services is prepared to make reasonable sacrifices, but less than 24 months between front-line unaccompanied tours is not reasonable.
The second issue is housing. It was the Conservative government sold off MoD property to an agency because it would all be so much better managed. All property, we were told, would now be brought up to standard because there would be money available to do so. Many of us objected strongly and, indeed, voted against the proposals, as did my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and myself. It gives me no pleasure to say that we have been proved right. Much of the Army's housing is in a shocking state. It has not been brought up to the standards that we were led to expect.
My third point is about pensions. Yes, your Lordships will have guessed that I refer once more to the attributable forces family pension, to which all servicemen now contribute. If you know that if anything happens to you, your widow will have a pension for life from the contributions that you have made, you will have some confidence. However, that is not now the case. If your widow wishes to remarry in order to provide a father and a firm family background for your children, she will lose the pension to which you have contributed. Your Lordships will have heard this argument before. I include it simply as one of my three points.
Recently, we have heard much about the importance of a European force, as well as NATO. Certainly, we hope that our European allies will send more troops, money and supplies to support NATO, for which the Americans and the British are still bearing the brunt. However, we do not envisage a future in which NATO, as a tried, practised and working organisation, could be in any way sidelined by an amorphous European force governed by committees.
During the time that I have been lucky enough to be associated with the Defence Study Group, there have been from time to time government reviews, starting with the ill-omened Options for Change. They are all bright, glossy, and full of interesting figures, and they all cut down our forces and their finances. However, the last one—the Strategic Defence Review—seemed to have some chance of succeeding. It looked at our defences from the other way round. Of course, it was not perfect; nothing in this world is. Our forces had to budget for an annual 3 per cent reduction. If all things had been equal, that might have proved possible. But all things are not equal. The MoD has now had to fork
1070
out for Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, with no help from the Treasury. What was already a very tight budget is rapidly becoming an impossible one. We know that we have the best Armed Forces in the world; we know that they are all totally splendid and we admire them from our hearts. We certainly pay enough taxes. Could not a higher proportion of them be squeezed from the Treasury for defence and for our Armed Forces?
4.32 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has certainly done your Lordships a service by introducing this debate. However, I suspect that he will have been as disappointed as we are on this side to see the paucity of supporters on the government side of the House. Perhaps that has become a feature of debates on this subject.
First, I wish to address the matter of recruiting, in particular, to the reserve forces. I am cautiously encouraged that regular recruiting is buoyant or, at least, is becoming more buoyant. That is certainly good news for us all in the light of the stretched circumstances in which the Armed Forces have to operate. However, as other noble Lords mentioned this afternoon, it is very bad news that retention is still so poor in the regular forces. I very much hope that, when she comes to reply to the debate, the noble Baroness will be able to touch on that and explain more about what is being done to try to deal with that matter.
As to the reserve forces, it is perhaps a little difficult to judge how the TA's restructuring has affected recruiting at this comparatively early stage. However, I understand that figures are holding up quite well and, again, I hope that the noble Baroness can explain how they stand.
I declare a non-financial interest as a member of the National Employers' Liaison Committee for the reserve forces. In that committee we very much welcome the recognition which Ministers have given to the valuable role of the reserve forces, and particularly to their employers. We recognise and admire the commitment of volunteers who deploy on full-time service. Equally, however, many of them might not be prepared to volunteer without the support of their employers and their families. One of the roles of the local employer liaison committees and the National Employers' Liaison Committee is to communicate more effectively with employers. I believe that that is now being achieved.
A number of initiatives have been launched in the past year by the National Employers' Liaison Committee in conjunction with other departments and with the Reserves Training Mobilisation Centre, which is proving most successful. There are other activities, such as the "Employers Abroad" scheme, whereby employers have been able to see for themselves the crucial role played by our Armed Forces, including the integrated reserves, in sustaining peace in the Balkans.

1071
Employers who have released reservists to take part in those activities have got back individuals who are much more able to communicate effectively, think on their feet, take decisions if required to do so and, yet, maintain their full focus on the corporate goal. The authority and presence needed in a hostile military environment are not tied to rank and position alone. Civilian employers have not necessarily known as much about that as they should or they have not appreciated it in the way that we would wish. Therefore, the recent initiatives are important steps in the right direction.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, there is still considerable weakness in the medical reserves. I have been involved in this subject for some time, both as chairman of an NHS trust until two years ago and, now, as a member of the National Employers' Liaison Committee. In a couple of months I shall visit the Balkans with senior members of the NHS, as other medical employers have already done, to see the valuable work carried out by medical reservists there. To that extent, and being acutely aware of the pressures which exist within the National Health Service, I, too, very much hope that the Minister will do all that she can to ensure that her department and the Department of Health work together as closely and pragmatically as possible in order to achieve the desired results. That surely would be a good example of joined-up government.
Qualifications matter, and the world-class training that the reserves receive goes a long way to achieving qualifications. Within the National Employers' Liaison Committee we point out that reservist activities provide a return to the employer—what we call the "profitable partnership". Over 6,000 employers, including most of our best known firms, have recognised that. I fear that it is not so widely recognised or understood among the small and medium-sized businesses. Of course, very many reservists are employed by
them. It is important that the partnership to which I have referred is a true partnership. With the new importance being attached to the reserves as a capability, there must be real benefits from reservist activities to the employer, as well as to the Ministry of Defence. It is essential that the employer is not left feeling that he or she is a minority shareholder rather than a full partner.
I address briefly a different theme—one in which I cease to be quite so complimentary about the Government. There seems to be virtually no mention in the White Paper about finance. When there are presently so many operational commitments and wider demands on the Treasury, it is particularly important that the Ministry of Defence is run in the most cost-effective way possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has the major responsibility for looking after defence procurement.
I have heard some pretty horrific examples which remind me of a speech that I made in your Lordships' House 20 years ago addressing the same kind of theme. I have heard that in the United Kingdom within the last couple of years the invoiced cost of installing a
1072
90-foot computer cable between a hub and a socket one floor above amounted to an astonishing £999. I have also heard that in the Falklands the cost of moving a 13-amp socket three feet was over £800. The cost of fixing grilles to portacabins amounted to a four-figure sum. Those are pretty simple domestic tasks. If the noble Baroness had to fit an "Xpelair" into her kitchen, would she expect to spend nearly £900? I doubt it. But I am told that that has been the actual approved cost of fitting one into an office somewhere at Arborfield within the past couple of years. Unbelievably, those examples are in line with the contracts which were set.
Things have gone seriously wrong if procedures, outsourcing and contractorisation have led to such extravagant waste which should be as intolerable in the public sector as it most certainly is in the private sector. It seems that it is something of a scandal and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to do something about it.
I return to my main theme. I certainly support the Government in their intention to have useable reserve forces. They have an essential role to play. Certainly, in the National Employers' Liaison Committee, we do all that we can to explain the benefits of that policy and develop the sound start made. But it is up to the Government to do rather more to persuade all concerned that they have not embarked on "defence on the cheap".
4.40 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, as the question of overstretch and the balance between resources and commitments has been fairly well discussed already, although I feel strongly on that subject, I shall pass over it. I shall also not mention the Defence Medical Services about which I feel strongly because we debated that on an Unstarred Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, not long ago.
The SDR initiated a number of fairly radical reorganisations which included the establishment of some joint service ones, but the MoD underestimated the cost both of executing the reorganisations themselves and the cost of providing the equipment, where new items were needed, and the actual running costs, especially that of training to an adequate level. In addition, the Government imposed the iniquitous 3 per cent annual efficiency saving to which reference has been made by more than one speaker, which in reality, as has been said, has served as an annual 3 per cent cut.
As has so often been the case in the past, savings assumed to arise from a reorganisation have not been realised to the extent forecast. The result is that in many different fields of defence, the new organisations cannot be adequately equipped, trained and manned. That must be remedied by increasing the MoD's financial allocation.
The next subject on which I wish to touch, which has been mentioned already by one or two noble Lords, is the relationship between ESDI and NATO, including the expansion of the latter. The Government have got

1073
themselves into a thorough muddle on that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, gave a very perceptive lecture on that subject at the annual War Studies Lecture at King's College about a month ago. Unfortunately, there were very few present who were not members of the war studies department, partly because it clashed with the Division in this House on Clause 28.
I hope that I am not misrepresenting the noble Lord's views when I summarise them. He said that to make sense of that problem, one must ask: what is a realistic scenario affecting European security in which first, the Americans would not want to be involved; and secondly, we should not want them to be. The answer is simple: something of no great urgency or which seriously affected international relations. If that were not the case, the Americans would want to have a hand in it and we, and almost certainly the Germans, would want them to, certainly if it in any way affected relations with Russia. I believe that that was the burden of his argument, with which I strongly agree.
My own view—and it is not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, but is my own view—is that if that is the case, it is absurd to suggest, as paragraph 19 of the Defence White Paper does, that an ESDI should be able,
"to tackle the most demanding crisis management tasks, in operations up to corps level (up to 50,000 to 60,000 personnel, together with appropriate air and naval elements)".
I suggest that the most that would be needed would be that one of the members of the European Union should be able to provide a 2-star land/air headquarters and associated communications to command a land force of up to 20,000 men; and that one member, another member, should be able to provide a similar naval headquarters, if one were needed, in the Baltic, and another in the Mediterranean. With that sort of scenario, I cannot envisage the need for naval operations in those circumstances in the North Sea, the Channel or the Atlantic.
A far better answer, which I have long advocated in this House and elsewhere, would be a more integrated European element within NATO, of which we, Germany and France must be members but which other members of the alliance need not be if they do not wish to be. If necessary, it could exercise command of the forces of members of the EU who are not members of NATO, just as there are today forces of non-members serving under NATO command in the Balkans.
Another point I make is the application of science and technology to defence. There is disappointingly little in the Defence White Paper about that, although paragraphs 7 to 9 of Chapter 1 pay some attention to it. Only four-and-a-half lines are devoted to the DERA on page 47, and that concentrates on the hope that it,
"can attract investment and develop new business".
I am concerned with the danger that, if it is turned into a public/private partnership, the close contact between its scientific and engineering staff and the combat user, which is so important, could be weakened.
1074
That constant interchange is essential not only so that the researcher and developer may appreciate the combat user's needs and the conditions under which he will operate, but also for the flow in the opposite direction: so that current and future scientific and technological developments may be made known to the user and that he may be persuaded not just to improve his equipment and methods but may also consider radically new ways of nullifying the effect of hostile armed forces. I am far from satisfied that enough effort is being put into that field.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for introducing this debate. It is always a great pleasure in this House to listen to the voices of those in the defence field who are expert, who have very long experience of what they speak about and who bring to our debates an authority which makes us all stop and think again about the policy we are discussing.
In Mitrovica in the last couple of weeks we have had yet another example of the patience, common sense and humour that the British forces bring to what are often extremely difficult situations. We have much reason to admire them.
As somebody who is not an expert on defence, it would be inappropriate for me to add a great deal to what has been said by noble Lords far wiser and more experienced in this field than I am on the issue of overstretch. I only want to say that I believe that the case made by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Carver, is extremely powerful. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, pointed out that the retention figures are extremely disturbing and that in the modern world families ask to be considered alongside the head of the family. Therefore, it is increasingly difficult to expect those families to put up with conditions of life which are so inferior to those enjoyed by others in other professions.
We must address that. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, was eloquent on the subject of the quality of Armed Forces' accommodation, some of which I have seen for myself. I strongly agree with her about the very poor conditions in which some of our servicemen are expected to live.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed to the encouraging recruitment figures. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about those recruitment figures and about the Ministry of Defence's admirable campaign to try to attract more people from the ethnic minorities. But it is of course the case, as my noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond pointed out, that recruitment figures must always be set against retention figures and it is no good taking one without the other. It is the combination which gives one the net gain to the Armed Forces and it is that figure which is disturbing.
I should like to echo what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, had to say about procurement. It seems to me—the noble Lord, Lord

1075
Williams of Elvel, also pointed to it—that there is something deeply troubling about the efficiency of our procurement process. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur,
referred to the cost of laying a cable. I am reminded of what he said about the recent United States Congress study and what was called the famous 2,000 dollar toilet seat. It seems to be broadly the case that procurement in the defence field is simply not subject to as acute competition as it is in the civilian area. I wonder whether in that context broader European competition might give all European countries a better deal than they appear to be getting at the present time.
I turn briefly to an area of the White Paper which has been less discussed; namely, peace support operations. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said very powerfully that it was important that the military were directed towards their overall duty, which is to defend the country and its interests. Having said that, however, it is also worth saying that peace support operations are of crucial importance. This is where joined up government comes to the centre of things. The relationship between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development is crucial to whether the achievements of our Armed Forces are carried forward into the development of civilian peace operations.
In that context, reading the most recent reports from Kosovo, one is left with a great sense of concern. In a recent leader the Guardian said that we had won the war and we may be losing the peace. Certainly, those of us who have read the OSCE reports have to be concerned about the speed of the run down of, among others, British troops in Kosovo—a figure of no less than 6,500 over a very short period of time—presumably largely because of the overstretch of our Armed Forces at a time when, bluntly, the civilian operation was in no position to take over full responsibility.
We have to address that issue in order to be able to sustain the achievement of our Armed Forces and not to rely on them too much for what ought to be the responsibility of civilian operations to take over where they leave off. That is simply not happening at the present time, partly because we do not have an adequately mobilised civilian force to take that responsibility at the appropriate time.
That is not true only of peacekeeping operations; it is also eminently true of humanitarian and environmental disaster operations, the most recent example being Mozambique. In a supplementary question earlier today I asked the Minister for the Department of International Development whether we were giving adequate attention to the requirements of bridge building and road repair in Mozambique at a time when the continuation of air travel is the most expensive way to meet the needs of the population of Mozambique and when the floods are beginning to recede. That appears to me to be an eminently suitable
1076
task for our brilliant engineering corps within the Armed Forces, but one which would have to be part of an essentially civilian operation.
I shall turn to three areas of the White Paper within the field of defence and foreign policy co-operation and mention each briefly. The first is the European Security and Defence Initiative to which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and my noble friend Lord Watson referred. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said that he could not imagine any situation in which there would be a serious crisis and the United States would not be ready to take a leading role. I wish that I agreed with him, but I cannot do so absolutely.
There is one pending crisis in which the United States might not be willing to become involved. I refer to the increasingly fragile situation in Montenegro. Many of us have been saying for some months now that that country might well be the next place in line for what has been the consistent strategy of Mr Milosevic—picking on each part of the former republic of Yugoslavia to drive it into submission to himself or else out of the republic altogether.
Noble Lords will know that in the past few days Montenegro has broken away from the dinar currency area of the former republic of Yugoslavia, and has declared the deutschmark as its currency. As such it is running very considerable risks of some form of military action against it. If Montenegro falls, the West will be regarded as having betrayed that one part of the former Yugoslav republic which consistently
supported what we did in Kosovo. I believe that the repercussions could be extremely serious. I wish that I could be quite certain that the United States would be willing to intervene in that situation, but I am not. I believe that the throes of an election which last for almost a whole year in the United States and the rising voices of isolationism in Congress at least allow one to raise a question as to whether this is the kind of area where European initiatives come to the fore and where we might be expected to take some responsibility ourselves without always looking across the Atlantic.
I make two final points. The first concerns an area of overstretch which has not yet been discussed in this debate. I refer to the continuous flying operations over Iraq. Frankly, I suspect that the sanctions policy there is running rapidly into the ground, if it has not already done so. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us the cost of those operations and what consideration is being given to a form of sanctions more directly focused at the ruling group in Iraq, which manages to escape virtually all the effects of sanctions against the civilian population and not to suffer in any way from them.
Finally, I refer to the section "New threats and challenges" in paragraph 8 of the White Paper which refers to the concept of a national missile defence. Last week I was in Taiwan, which is busily attempting to get within what it sees to be the probability of an American national missile defence, if the next set of tests is successful. The implications of that for NATO, for western European solidarity, for Taiwan, China

1077
and Russia, are very great indeed. The White Paper passes over it by saying that the time is not yet right. Yet in the United States it has become a fundamental subject for discussion in the area of strategic defence. Perhaps there is not time to go into that tonight, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for this House to consider in much greater detail the implications of national missile defence for the United States, and for that matter its allies, before we find ourselves caught up in a new strategy which we have not even had the opportunity to consider or discuss.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the entire House—possibly with the sole exception of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who wanted more time for his debate which is to follow—must be deeply grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for introducing this debate. However, it is not good enough. We have had nothing like enough time in which to discuss the problems arising out of the White Paper and service affairs in general. Almost every noble Lord has spoken powerfully to this subject. I particularly pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lords and to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth who is, as usual, fulfilling our function as the Fat Boy in Pickwick Papers and making our flesh creep. But we really must have more time to debate this subject.
In another place there was a two-day debate broken by the Government's half-term folly and your Lordships must have something comparable to that. I do not mean a debate on a Friday, even if the Government have avoided the Grand Military at Sandown. In the other place the Government tabled a Motion to approve the White Paper. Do we wonder whether they did not do that here because they might lose it? But in the debate in another place the Government spent a great deal of their time complaining about newspaper and television reports which seem to show that the MoD was in financial trouble and in terms of procurement. I do not intend to talk about procurement today, possibly because there is not time and also possibly because the noble Baroness knows too much about it.
Your Lordships have spoken on those subjects, but there has been little opportunity to explain the case for and against the sea of troubles. When she winds up, I hope that the Minister will come to explain the disagreement between the Ministry of Defence and Clare Short regarding payment for the men and materials sent to Mozambique. That matter was touched on earlier in the Question from my noble friend Lord Attlee, but we have not received an answer. It was clear that it was vitally important or more important than anything else that whatever action was taken was taken quickly, but the Ministry of Defence is so short of money—it is not even able to pay its outstanding bills—that it can scarcely be blamed for refusing to take responsibility for those additional costs.
Many aspects of the problems set out in the SDR, the White Paper and the report of the Select Committee have been covered during the course of the
1078
debate. The central question must he for the Government to confirm or deny the statement of the Chief of Defence Staff, General Guthrie, that the "European Army is a fantasy".
Is that an expression of the policy of Her Majesty's Government? In recent debates in your Lordships' House, it has appeared that the CDS has followed the party line closely. Therefore, I hope that that is the case. If it is not a fantasy—the cross head in the RUSI Journal called it a "myth"—we should be planning a very different navy, army and air force from those we have at present. If the Minister will make a categorical ex cathedra statement on that matter, her remarks will be greeted with much relief.
There can be no doubt that the Armed Forces are at this time in a difficult position. Apart from procurement, they have the right to expect that those who lead the services may do so with efficiency and expedition. From these Benches we have argued against the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. There is no doubt that the Human Rights Act is making life difficult. Therefore, it is essential that the services have the right man, or men, at the top. The CDS, General Guthrie, is shortly to retire and there are rumours that he is to be succeeded by General Sir Mike Jackson, even though he himself has only recently taken on a new post. I should not dream of asking the Minister to comment on that matter, but I must point out the real danger to acceptable and harmonious jointery if the top job is to go to a soldier for the third time in succession. Furthermore, General Jackson has shown himself to be a critic of NATO planning by setting out his views in the RUSI Journal. Many of us believe he is right, but is he in step with the Government?
The confidence we need the forces to have in their senior
officers, such as the CDS, is not helped by officers such as the CDS and the C-in-C Home Fleet writing to the press. That is the job of Ministers, not of the military. We know that not all the Chiefs of Staff are as much in agreement with the progress being made as the CDS seems to be. What happens if a senior officer at some time in the future is required to write a letter with which he does not agree? All senior officers are totally loyal to their political masters, but it is not their business to write such letters and they should not be required to do so.
I trust that the decision about the new CDS will be made by the Prime Minister and not by the Secretary of State. Wales and London show the clear dangers of "inserting" candidates into the top position and we must hope that it does not happen again. I must at this point make a plea to the Prime Minister, when he announces his additions to those who will come to join us in your Lordships' House, to put in a naval officer. Since the sad deaths of Lord Lewin and Lord Fieldhouse the views of the Royal Navy—pace the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who had some views on the matter—have scarcely been heard in the House.
Much has been said about material, so I suggest that the House should concentrate on the most important material of all: the men—homines not vires—of the

1079
Armed Forces. In another place, the Minister proudly announced that last year was the best recruiting year for a decade. To be fair, he showed also that he was interested in retention, even if his chief method of doing so seemed to be through improved telephone allowances and e-mail. Is that the "policy for people" about which the Government have been talking?
In another place, my honourable friend, Nicholas Soames, really caught the point when he said that British soldiers had proved, from Waterloo to Kosovo, that they could face tremendous odds with confidence and triumph. He said,
"if one asks a soldier what is the key to that confidence, he will immediately answer 'training and discipline"'.
We are seeing today too many decisions, DCIs and Acts of Parliament which are undermining that confidence and discipline. The Government must realise that service life and civilian life are different and must be judged differently. A serviceman must have total confidence in those set over him and in his mates. If he does not have that confidence and they do not have the authority which will enable them to instil that confidence, the Armed Forces will be lost.
Last week I saw in a newspaper a picture of a Scots Guards Drill Sergeant shouting at a recruit with the suggestion that in future he would have to whisper. I am sure that General Kiszely, now ADCS, would have been happy with that, with all that it would do to discipline on the slopes of Tumbledown. Human Rights Acts are all very fine, but they must not be applied to the Armed Forces in a manner which will produce pale imitations of what is required. I again quote Mr Soames,
"Ministers must realise that however disagreeable it may be to contemplate, the essence of military training is to prepare soldiers to fight in a bloody, frightening and exhausting war".
The SDR was generally, although not universally, welcomed. The White Paper, as your Lordships have shown today, less so. Too much remains undone; there has been too much saying and not enough doing. For instance, Birmingham University has been selected as the preferred host for the centre for defence medicine about which the Government are talking. According to the Government, they are making "rapid progress". Actually, all they have done is to select the site.
Not unreasonably, the Government are asking for time. Within reason they have it. But time, like an everflowing stream, bears all its sons away. I am sure that the Government will allocate time for a full debate soon, in which we may be able to discuss at reasonable length all the problems facing the Armed Forces. When we have another debate next year, let us hope that there are better things to report than there are now.
5.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for introducing the debate and, indeed, all of your Lordships who have participated in our discussions.
1080
The central theme of the White Paper is modernisation. It sets out the progress that we have made in many areas, not least in delivering the Strategic Defence Review and in taking forward European defence. The process we have begun is about delivering improvements to the capability of our Armed Forces. I join all noble Lords who have expressed their appreciation of our skilled and professional men and women committed to defend and promote the interests of this country.
None of us should underestimate the significance or ambition of the undertaking to modernise our Armed Forces and the means to support them in which we are now involved. It is a hugely complex and challenging process, but it is a necessary one. A modern Britain needs modern defence forces and the Strategic Defence Review lays out the path to achieve them. When the outcome of the review was announced in July 1998, it was widely acclaimed and admired for its logic, good sense and forward looking vision, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has been kind enough to acknowledge. But we always knew—the noble and gallant Lord also made this point—that we would really be judged on our delivery of the improvements which the SDR proposed.
We made it clear then that the changes we are making would take time to achieve. The heavy operational commitments which our forces undertook around the world last year—in Bosnia, the Gulf, East Timor and Kosovo—have made this more challenging still. As a result, in some areas we have had to adjust timescales for implementing some new initiatives. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that fundamentally the SDR is on track and will be delivered. Far from undermining the review, our operational experiences over the past year, not least in Kosovo, have reinforced its conclusions.
My right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence are to be congratulated for allocating an additional £500 million to the defence budget to take account of the additional cost of operations in the Balkans and elsewhere. That will help take the SDR to the next stage. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is reassured on that point. The announcement was made on 22nd February.
This afternoon much has been said about the 3 per cent efficiency target. It was mentioned by the noble and gallant
Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Carver. I take this opportunity to clarify the position on the efficiency saving. The MoD set itself a target of achieving a 3 per cent efficiency saving in operating costs for this and the next two years. Of course, it is a challenging target but one that can be met by genuine efficiencies, not by the sort of arbitrary cuts that the Strategic Defence Review was at pains to redress. The important point is that savings are not passed to the Treasury; they are available to the MoD to fund real improvements in defence capability.
Much has also been said about the current level of funding. I say as gently as I can to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who made such trenchant criticisms of

1081
government funding, that although the defence budget will indeed fall over 3 per cent over the next three years, she must compare that to the 17 per cent fall in the previous seven years which was the legacy of the party that she supports in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hope that I have always made it clear in this House that I do not approach the subject from a party point of view. I have always acknowledged, for instance, as regards the defence costs study, that we were to blame. The point at issue is what the forces need. I do not make a party point.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness is extremely kind to point that out. I recognise, as does the House, the great support that she gives our Armed Forces. In a debate of this kind I believe that I am justified in defending the fact that this Government have been far more generous to the Armed Forces than were our predecessors.
The White Paper describes some of the significant milestones that we have already achieved in delivering the SDR. I assure the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, that we are making significant progress. The noble and gallant
Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked for specific examples. We have already achieved an initial capability for the new Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. When complete, in 2002, the JRRF will enable us to deploy forces with a real capability anywhere in the world. It will draw forces from a pool of up to 50 warships and support vessels, four brigades and 260 aircraft of various types.
Last October, we set up the Joint Helicopter Command, which brings together almost all our battlefield helicopters and will command 16 Air Assault Brigade. It provides a real improvement in our operational effectiveness. The Joint Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence Regiment has been created. The joint Rapier air defence training unit is now a reality. A new joint doctrine and concept centre is already up and running, and the Defence Procurement Agency opened for business last spring.
We said that we would do all those things and we have done them. The noble and gallant Lord raised the question about strategic lift. That is under consideration now and shortly I hope to be able to give a complete answer on that important point.
On 1st April Joint Force 2000—the joint Royal Navy/RAF Harrier Force—will be formed. It will combine both aircraft fleets in a single force under a single command able to operate either from land bases or from our aircraft carriers at sea. That is not about organisational neatness, but about real operational capability.
Aircraft carriers have been mentioned. Work was commissioned for them on 23rd November last year. What was not mentioned by any of your Lordships was the beginning of the procurement process on 12 destroyers. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, that as the Minister primarily responsible
1082
for such issues I am not complacent. I am acutely aware of the importance of delivery of those important issues.
I turn now to the way in which the Government are tackling the acquisition of equipment and its logistic support programme—what we have called Smart Procurement. In addition to the DPA that was set up in April 1999, in April this year, the new Defence Logistics Organisation will go live. That brings together the individual service equipment support areas into a single tri-service organisation employing over 40,000 people. It will allow us to deliver the full benefits of our Smart Procurement initiative which is about providing fully effective through-life equipment, not just at the initial procurement stage.
Smart Procurement has already delivered significant improvements in defence procurement. Adoption of innovative support arrangements for Eurofighter and the attack helicopter are expected to save 1.8 billion and £700 million respectively over the life of those aircraft. The team working on the Challenger 2 project has already identified £200 million worth of savings. An estimated 30 per cent saving in time in arriving at a contract has been achieved in the Future Offensive Air System for the RAF, and the PFI Hawk Synthetic Trainer has been delivered to the RAF on time and to a budget 20 per cent cheaper than on a conventional procurement approach.
Such issues around Smart Procurement are not just tweaking the old MoD machine. They are a fundamentally new way of working. It is a way that calls for real commitment from Ministers, from officials, from the military and close co-operation with industry. I am happy to say that industry has been hugely helpful in the support given to us.
That is a very impressive programme of change, but as my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath said, the House may be forgiven for thinking that that was hardly the case, given some of the sensationalised reporting that we have seen in recent weeks. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Strange,
that there are some problems with equipment, but some of the reporting that we have seen on such points has frankly been enormously exaggerated. It is ridiculous to suggest that every piece of equipment that we have is the most modern money can buy. No army, now or ever, has been able to boast that. We know that the SA80 is a capable and accurate weapon, but we also know that it has some reliability problems in extreme weather conditions. Those problems did not start on 1st May 1997. That weapon was in use for 11 years before that date. The important point is that this Government have recognised the priority of ensuring that something is done about it.
Similarly, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, the Clansman radio has had problems. It was excellent when it came into service, but it is now showing its age. Its replacement, Bowman, was a procurement programme in deep trouble. When we came into office it was already 75 months late and still slipping. This Government have now put Bowman on a sound footing to ensure that the Armed Forces can

1083
have the new radio system that they deserve as soon as possible. We have even managed to bring forward the in-service date of the personal radio element of Bowman, reversing some of the delay that we inherited.
My noble friend also addressed some of the points around the Tornado mid-life update, something that attracted a good deal of press comment recently. Let me make it clear that the important point about that update is that it will be delivered on time and within budget and it will deliver the RAF an increased operational effectiveness. That update programme has not, particularly in Kosovo, diminished our operational capability, but it will ensure that our capability is enhanced.
There has also been much said about levels of activity, particularly for the Navy. We discussed this matter before Christmas in response to a Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Of course, the Navy has had to adjust its programme to keep within budget. It was ever thus. But this has been done without reducing the overall capability.
The Navy is not only going about its business as usual, but is entering a period of major deployment overseas. At the end of last month "HMS Illustrious" left for the Gulf at the head of a task group including a nuclear submarine, nine warships and 2,000 personnel. I had the privilege of visiting the ship last Sunday in Abu Dhabi. And in the spring HMS "Cornwall" will lead a global deployment—Navy Task Group 2000—which will be one of the most extensive in 15 years involving 10 warships, five auxiliaries and two submarines. That does not sound like a Navy confined to port.
There have also been suggestions that the RAF is being grounded in part. That too is grossly exaggerated. The RAF has had to be on deployment in the Balkans, Italy, the Gulf and the Falklands. That huge programme of activity is being maintained with no constraints due to finance, aircraft unavailability or pilot shortage. Again, it is business as usual.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in relation to the Defence Medical Services. There is indeed reason to have concern on those points. The cuts introduced in 1994 by the party opposite in the defence cost study shattered the morale of medical staff. That is why we—this Government—are spending £140 million making good the under-investment that we inherited. We are making good on the personnel side and on the equipment side over the four years from 1998 to 2002 with further funding continuing thereafter.
Despite serious manpower shortages, the Defence Medical Services is meeting all its operational commitments. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of all those working in the medical services. Their support is vital to our operational capability and we owe it to them to get this right. Ministers are acutely aware of the problems that have accumulated and we are doing our best to address them.
1084
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was quite right when he said that our most important assets are the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. We made our Policy for People a central component of the Strategic Defence Review because we know how vital it is to recruit and retain the best people. We said that we would introduce measures to improve recruitment and retention, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, that we have.
It is a tough challenge. Let us not forget what has happened to the numbers of men and women in our Armed Forces. In May 1997 the Army was undermanned by 5,000 people. On top of that, during the Strategic Defence Review, we identified a requirement for over 3,000 new posts. Nevertheless, we are making progress. Recruitment is buoyant. Last year recruitment figures for all three services were the best in a decade. This Government have worked hard to get the numbers up. But as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, said, this is only half the equation. The key to tackling overstretch is to stem the flow of skilled people leaving the forces.
We owe the men and women in our Armed Forces a more stable and predictable pattern of life than they have been able to achieve in the recent past. It is because the level of duties has been so high that so many people have been leaving. We are determined to do something about that. I assure my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel on that point.
We are making strides in reducing our commitments. The latest reductions in the Balkans, when fully implemented in the spring, will bring down the percentage of the Army preparing for, deployed to or recovering from operations to 28 per cent compared to the 47 per cent that we experienced at the height of the Kosovo campaign. That means that we will have reduced commitments below the level that we inherited. During that period our force levels in Bosnia will have fallen by over 2,500 personnel and those in Kosovo by 6,500. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.
But reducing commitments is not always possible. We have responsibilities around the world and must discharge them. It is important therefore that the men and women who work so hard to make the world a safer place are well looked after. We have been trying to do that by improving deployment allowances; by increasing operational leave allowances; and by improving telephone allowances and access to medical services. Importantly also, the Government have implemented in full the pay rise to our service personnel every year.
We have also made real improvements to opportunities for personal development in the services through our Learning Forces Initiative, improving access to modern learning facilities like interactive learning centres and of course the Internet. Those measures provide skills for life, not just during an individual's career in the Armed Forces.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, raised the important issue of training. Of course we recognise the

1085
importance of training at all levels—individual, unit and at formation level. We are committed to ensuring that our forces are properly trained. We have just embarked on a major review of training which will ensure that we maintain the highest quality in our training and that it is better integrated and more responsive to our needs. So we need no persuading on that point. We are absolutely persuaded that it is crucial to the delivery of our front-line capability.
The Strategic Defence Review is also modernising our reserve forces. Restructuring of the reserves will be complete by the beginning of April. The Government are committed to a strong reserve force for all three services. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his recognition of the benefit of those forces to their employers and potential employers in the future—an important point made by the noble Lord. The reserve forces make a real difference to our ability to be a force for good in the world. They have proved their worth time and again; for example, in the Balkans where over 10 per cent of our resources were drawn from the reserves.
Following the SDR we have taken two key steps to make our reserves more useable. First, we set up the Reserves Training and Mobilisation Centre at Chilwell, which is a dedicated facility to handle the needs of the Army and individual reservists during mobilisation and demobilisation. Secondly, we completed the Reserve Mobilisation Study. That has shown clearly that compulsory mobilisation of reserves for peace support operations such as the Balkans can be done. It is legal; it is feasible. The reserves are there to be used and, if necessary, we shall be using them.
I should like to say something about European defence support, a point which mainly exercised my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Our starting point is that it is clearly wrong that Europe collectively should only be able to contribute a small proportion of the total forces required to solve a problem on its own doorstep. During operations over Kosovo last year we Europeans flew only one third of the total number of aircraft sorties during the campaign. We must not obscure the fact that it was American military power that gave credibility to the diplomatic campaign.
Of course, the majority of forces now operating under NATO command are from European nations. But deploying a force of a few tens of thousands—a fraction of the total military personnel available to us—on precisely the type of peace support operation which will be increasingly common in the future, has undoubtedly stretched Europe's collective resources. It raised some difficult questions. We believe that those questions must be confronted. That is why we have been doing the work we have with our European allies and partners. At the Helsinki European Summit in December, EU heads of state and government committed themselves to be able, by 2003, to deploy rapidly and sustain for at least one year forces of up to 60,000 strong for crisis management tasks as a
1086
contribution to a NATO-led operation. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that that is not something we envisage happening outside NATO.
Unfortunately, this relatively clear goal, this straightforward determination to improve European nations' individual and collective military capacity, has been muddled by arguments from commentators around it. But let me say categorically, as my noble friend Lord Williams reminded us, that we believe that our security in Europe rests fundamentally with NATO. NATO is our cornerstone. The alliance has been the guarantor of our safety for over 50 years and we have no intention of changing that. So I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that we have no intention of giving Eurocrats a role in our military command; we have no intention of moving to some sort of mini-NATO for Europe. We believe that it would be damaging to NATO and consequently extremely dangerous, not least to our own national interest. We have no intention of ruining an organisation that has reliably provided Europe with its security for the past half century. I can say categorically to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, as I have done on many occasions in the past, that we have no intention of setting up a European army.
However, the US Administration on both sides of its political divide supports us on this. We have seen what has been said,
not only by Strobe Talbot but also by Robert Zoellick, a key adviser to George W. Bush. So I hope that the position on what the Government are doing on this issue is clear to noble Lords. It does not simply mean spending more money. In any case, as was shown in Kosovo, Europe's problem is not so much the quantity of its defence spending, but its quality. We must generate more real and usable military capability. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, reminded us of his worries about service discipline and human rights. I recognise his concern. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the changes we are making are supported by the Chief of the Defence Staff and by all the Chiefs of Staff. I know that the noble Lord remains worried. For that reason, I should like to make an offer to him. Would he like to discuss this matter with me more fully outside your Lordships' Chamber where, perhaps, I shall be in a better position to demonstrate my points to him?
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel asked questions about the use of our Armed Forces in relation to trade. Yes, on occasion we do use our Armed Forces in this way. For example, they have provided a number of mine counter-measure vessels in the Gulf to ensure that trade lanes are kept free of mines. I believe that that is an entirely proper utilisation of our armed services. Of course they are also used in defence of our overseas territories, not only in the Falklands but, as I am sure my noble friend will recall, they assisted in aiding the difficult situation that was experienced not so long ago in Montserrat.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised again issues over the Chinook incident. I do not believe that there has been any new evidence, despite reports to the

1087
contrary. FADEC was not a factor in the accident. Nothing in the NAO report would lead us to reopen the board of inquiry. However, I do know that this is causing much distress. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I, too, have a great interest in this matter. We are shortly to have a meeting and I hope that those discussions will allow us to cover this matter more frankly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, made a number of points about defence housing. It is true that we have concentrated on the worst housing. Perhaps it will be a comfort to the noble Baroness if I tell her that we plan to spend twice as much this year as we did last year on improving defence housing. We believe that 500 to 600 new houses will be added to the estate in the course of the coming year.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, raised his worries about DERA. I am aware of the anxieties expressed by the noble and gallant Lord. The future of DERA has indeed been a very difficult issue. We are concentrating a great deal of time—perhaps I may say ministerial time—on this important issue. I hope to be in a position to speak publicly about it in the near future.
The questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, about Russia are ones that are in the forefront of our minds. The SDR recognised that an attack by a resurgent Russia had to be the greatest threat that might happen. No matter how remote that threat might be, we concluded that we needed to retain the capacity to respond to such a threat. I can assure the noble Baroness on that point. But of course it is not confrontation that we seek with Russia, but friendship and co-operation. I am sure that the noble Baroness would be the first to acknowledge that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised a number of different issues. Perhaps I may write to her about the specialist military we have deployed at the moment in Mozambique. I should also like to write to her on the interesting point she raised about Montenegro. That is also a matter of concern.
The British Armed Forces are, man for man and woman for woman, up with the very best. Their excellence is quite rightly recognised throughout this country, as it is also recognised around the world. I am told this constantly when I travel abroad on the part of the Government. They are a force for good around the world. We do not hesitate to use them when it is right to do so and when we believe that they can really make a difference. That is an important point. The reforms that we are introducing following the Strategic Defence Review are delivering results, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate today. They are putting in place the defence capability which Britain needs and which our Armed Forces both need and deserve.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer one simple question? Can she give the House any comfort as regards a further debate of a proper length on the White Paper?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the length of my reply to noble Lords will have already indicated, there is much to be discussed on the issues surrounding defence and much that I would like to say. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that the proper way to resolve the matter is through the usual channels.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, we have had a spirited, interesting and, I hope the Government will agree, informative debate on this matter. I am most grateful to all noble Lords and to my noble and gallant friends who have contributed so excellently and aptly this afternoon. I should like also to thank the Minister who, in her invariably courteous manner—and, as we have heard, at some personal inconvenience to herself—has listened patiently and tried so helpfully to answer many of the points that have been raised.
I very much hope that the Government will reflect most carefully on the various matters put forward by noble Lords who have such considerable experience in this field. Of course, for the time being, the Ministry of Defence is not yet, to coin a phrase, "making it happen" in terms of what the SDR and the White Paper led us to believe will be necessary to meet our foreign affairs and strategic commitments. As regards modernisation, we were smart enough and modern enough to be successful in Borneo, in the Falklands and in the Gulf, so that is a continuing process.
However, whatever the noble Baroness may say, the key lies in resources. I shall echo what the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister said in another context. More skilled and trained people, better performance and honouring promises
requires more funding. This applies every bit as much to defence as it does to the National Health Service. It is essential that resources and commitments are brought in line. If the Government's foreign policy strategy and the pressures from a variety of sources to which they are subjected from time to time do not allow them to make cuts, then resources must be increased and certainly not reduced, as has been happening year by year.
In the hope that the Government will appreciate that this equation can no longer be fudged, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Agriculture
5.37 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer rose to call attention to the economics of agriculture within the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Firstly I would like to place on record how grateful I am to my fellow Cross-Bench Peers for allowing me this debate. We have not had a full debate on agriculture itself since December 1998 when the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, masterly galloped us through the problems facing the farming industry. Fifteen months on, the farming industry is in a real crisis.
The Prime Minister recently said that parts of the farming industry are in crisis. That, my Lords, is not true. All sectors of the farming industry are in the deepest crisis in living memory, as I shall shortly try to illustrate.
I must declare an interest as someone who tries to farm in the Scottish Borders, but I am an arable farmer who has fared marginally less badly than the other sectors.
It must not be forgotten that no business can go on continually losing money and the horror for farmers is that it is normally through no fault of their own as they have no control whatsoever over their own destiny. We must not forget that it was as recently as 1954 that food rationing ended—my teenage children find that difficult to comprehend, especially when even in the 1970s farmers were still being financially encouraged to produce more food and of course borrow the shortfall. Now we are told, stop, set it all aside, and with world starvation at record levels I find this difficult to understand.
However I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who sadly is unable to take part tonight, would have used his well-known trademark and have said something along the following lines: if in 1974 you had bought a 100 horsepower tractor, you would have received a grant under the Farming and Horticultural Development Scheme and you would have needed to have sold 78 tonnes of wheat. Ten years ago there was no grant and that same tractor, admittedly more refined, would have required the sale of 159 tonnes of wheat. Last year, had you wished to buy that same tractor, 250 tonnes—250 tonnes—would have to have been sold in order to acquire that same tractor.
These figures alone surely must emphasise the crisis that agriculture is in. I make no apology for painting this gloomy picture. Twenty years ago malting barley was being sold at £120 a tonne. If the price of malting barley had kept pace with the minimum increase in the agricultural wage today, farmers would be receiving £170 a tonne. For those of us who do produce malting barley today, we are lucky to get £70 a tonne. I wonder how the noble Baroness would feel if today she was earning 60 per cent less than she was 20 years ago.
The saddest story of all is the pig sector. Farmers are now obliged to adhere to the strictest levels of animal welfare and in our part of the world are losing £18 for every animal that they sell—not unnaturally, pig farmers are leaving the industry at an alarming rate. And what we must not forget is the horrific effect
1090
within the whole farming industry that this is going to have. If there are no pig farmers, sales of feed barley will drop dramatically.
Sheep farmers are getting less for their fleeces than they were 50 years ago. Last year the retail cost of lamb was 608 pence per kilogram. In 1999 the farm gate price was 179 pence per kilogram. Turning to milk, the retail price of milk last year was 60.15 pence per litre, and what did the producer get—just 18.37 pence per litre.
While researching figures for this debate I have to say that I became more and more despondent. If we look at the egg sector, the farm gate price for a dozen eggs last year was 27.33 pence per dozen and the retail price was an incredible 137.5 pence per dozen. To summarise, dairy farmers' income is down 41 per cent. Cattle and sheep income is down 52 per cent, and cereal farmers are suffering a drop of 49 per cent.
Another serious problem relating to the economics of agriculture is the price transparency of inputs in relation to our other European partners. To give two small but important examples, agro-chemical prices are 70 per cent higher here in the UK than they are in Spain. A combine harvester is 45 per cent more expensive here than in any other European Union country and I would urge Her Majesty's Government to look most carefully at this disparity.
Another very worrying factor is the dramatic increase in the number of farmers leaving the industry. Ten years ago there were nearly a quarter of a million farmers. Today there are just under 200,000. Another worry is the serious decline in the agricultural workforce. I have been farming for 21 years and I inherited a workforce of 17. Today I am farming a larger acreage with just four.
In the last 10 years the UK's agricultural workforce has declined from 477,000 to 435,000—a drop of 42,000. Job satisfaction is non-existent and farmers are under increasing stress. Last year the rural stress information network received 70 calls. Already in the first two months of this year it had received 27 calls. Grim, my Lords. Even grimmer is the bank lending to agriculture in the UK. According to figures released by the Bank of England, all banks' lending to agriculture, forestry and fishing in nominal terms amounted to some £2.3 billion back in 1979 while in 1999 lending totalled some £7.8 billion. This shows an increase of 236 per cent compared to 20 years ago-236 per cent.
I hope by now I have painted a sufficiently gloomy albeit realistic state of our agricultural industry. Now what can be done? The vexed subject of agrimoney compensation, I am sure,
will be mentioned by other noble Lords. The deadline for the Government to make a decision on whether to claim is now just seven weeks away.
The current economic climate for agriculture is different to that experienced by other sectors of the economy. While the general economy has grown on average at an annual rate of 2.5 per cent over the last four years, agriculture has just entered its fifth successive year of recession.
British agriculture is far more vulnerable to exchange rate movements than other sectors of the UK economy since agriculture support prices and direct payments are set in euro. Therefore in agriculture, unlike manufacturing, both the domestic and the export market are directly affected by
exchange rate movements. It is important to note that every other member state, apart from the UK, has claimed all the EU funded share of agrimoney compensation, and that some member states have also paid the national top-up. Thus the argument for agrimoney compensation is strong and I would urge Her Majesty's Government to take action before the deadline runs out.
Non-food crops have the potential to make a huge contribution to environmental conservation, rural communities and the agricultural economy, but the inability of the Government and the European Commission to commit resources and to deliver a coherent policy means that this is simply not happening and I believe that it should be.
The development of a robust non-food crops industry is both possible and desirable and its development will make a strong contribution to the objective of sustainable development within the European Union. I greatly welcome the response by the Government to last Friday's debate and I just hope that things will really now start moving.
A mechanism should be introduced which enables non-food crops to compete across the whole of the country; for example, biomass crops should be grown on non-eligible land. If this cannot be achieved we must, at the very least, end the use of the list which restricts the crops which can be grown on set-aside for non-food use. A marketing initiative should be targeted at the retail and manufacturing industries to impress on them the commercial benefits of using crop derived raw materials such as biodegradable plastics, food wraps and even electricity.
North Sea oil is not going to last for ever. The nonfood crops sector is in its infancy. For this reason, it is vital that both public and private research and development of non-food crops is encouraged. Advances in processing and utilisation technology and genetic manipulation of the crops themselves will lead to the expansion of opportunities for which crop derived raw materials can be used. More must be spent on research and development. We still only spend £1.1 million a year, and that is a sixth of what Germany spends. We are lagging way behind all of our European partners when we surely should be leading the field.
I much regret that the Government could not accept, at least in principle. Stephen O'Brien's Private Members' Bill
in the other place last Friday on food labelling and country of origin. Will the Minister say whether the Government will actively seek a change in the European law to deliver honest food labelling, and how long does she estimate this will take to put in place?
The Prime Minister has urged us all to diversify, but in really rural areas there is, sadly, no alternative to farming. When I had the privilege to represent Scotland on the ELO, I took its president on a tour of Scotland. We stopped at the bottom of Glenshee and he stared in amazement at the barren mountain face and he could not believe that it was home to 1,000 black-faced sheep.
The Prime Minister has pledged to reduce the amount of bureaucracy. It is ridiculous that the average farmer now spends two days a week form filling. Surely this is unnecessary. Can the noble Baroness tell us when the Government are going to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge?
What, sadly, all this boils down to is one fundamental question. Do Her Majesty's Government want an agricultural industry in the United Kingdom? If the answer is yes, then urgent, and I mean immediate, measures must be put in place. If the answer is no, then something will have to be done in order to preserve the countryside for those who live and work in it. Otherwise we will be in a scorched earth situation similar to the one during the Napoleonic wars. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government will get any thanks or pleasure from that route.
This afternoon the Prime Minister pledged to sit down with pig farmers in order to work out a short and long-term plan to tackle the immediate crisis. Perhaps at last this means that the Government have recognised how serious the problem is, but I fear it will be too little and, sadly, too late.
I implore the Government to take urgent action now in order to secure and to sustain the finest, the safest and most efficient agricultural industry in the world. We surely owe it to future generations, not only of farmers but to future inhabitants of this country so that Britain will always be a green and pleasant land. I beg to move for Papers.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on securing this debate and on the excellent job he has done in outlining the problems and difficulties facing agriculture in Britain today.
However, I think that we have already reached the stage where expensive, short-term palliatives are no longer sufficient. If my memory serves me correctly, when I was in the Scottish Office we supported agricultural jobs to the equivalent of something like £20,000 per full-time job. We spent more on agricultural support than on all other industrial support put together.
We face something which is not a British problem; it is primarily a European problem. I have a deep and abiding hatred of the common agricultural policy. It is an expensive failure. It is a con on both the consumer and the producer. It has failed for a number of reasons. First, it produces surpluses in all major commodities at prices which consumers are unwilling to pay. Secondly, it penalises efficiency through such measures and nonsenses as milk quotas, and prevents European agriculture from competing effectively at world market

1093
prices. It is expensive to both the taxpayer and the consumer. Because it is based primarily on production, it results in environmental degradation. It has been a failure because it has been unsuccessful in its primary objective—as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, indicated—of retaining the agricultural population. Its whole basis and rationale has been undermined. But, above all, it distances the producer from the market and leads to an invidious form of dependency.
The time has come to examine the case for public support of agriculture. Traditionally that argument has been based on three major components. The first concerns the need for food security, which was clearly appropriate in the years immediately after the Second World War and during the 1950s and perhaps a little later, but it is not appropriate in the modern world. The idea of interdependency and globalisation makes national food security a total nonsense.
The second argument is that it is appropriate to support agriculture in order to even out the troughs associated with an industry subject to volatility. I agree with that to an extent, but why single out agriculture in this way? Other industries are subject to volatility and the response has been for the producers themselves to accept responsibility to tide themselves over troughs and to get through to peaks. In agriculture that opportunity exists through various forms of hedging and also through security of long-term contracts.
The third argument, historically, has been that of import substitution. Superficially this is attractive. However, I think that we all remember that following the import substitution argument was the great folly in economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s. It would be possible to have a Scottish pineapple industry if we did not wish to import pineapples from other countries. But just imagine the cost of having, and supporting, a Scottish pineapple industry! A much sounder policy is based on comparative advantage, and doing what we do best, doing it well, efficiently and economically. That means, I hope—despite the absurdities of the common agricultural policy—that there will be no Scottish pineapple industry.
The fourth argument, which I believe is a much stronger argument, is that there is a need to support agriculture on social and environmental grounds. Those cases are much stronger. However, I believe that the social change argument is limited to enabling those involved in agriculture to manage the adjustments necessary when major structural change in any industry is under way. I believe that government have a responsibility to enable that to take place as painlessly as possible, unlike what happened under the previous government in some areas of heavy industry, particularly coalmining.
The environmental protection argument is the strongest of all because I believe that our citizens are willing to pay for a living, active, well managed, environmentally sound countryside. That requires a degree of change of mentality among some producers. They speak easily about being guardians of the countryside and that is right and proper, but that guardianship also requires a commitment to
1094
environmental trusteeship. I hope that government will increasingly find a way to support environmental protection and enhancement.
If we look to the future, I am convinced that the way forward is a combination of niche quality markets, such as Scottish beef—although I would say that, wouldn't I? That requires proper labelling; there is much to be done on the labelling side—a concentration on following through further efficiency gains and freeing up regulations and controls to enable us to compete at world market prices; and the element of countryside management. However, the tragedy is that both at a European and British level we do not have the vehicles to deliver these policy objectives. Agenda 2000 was pretty much of a damp squib in terms of moving the agricultural reform debate forward.
In the short term I think that it is inevitable that governments will be faced with more and more demands for direct support. I do not think in all honesty that that is a long-term, sustainable policy. The only hope is that over the horizon—recognising the failure of Agenda 2000—we face the WTO round. That will result in more liberalisation. It will be a tougher and, I think, in many cases an unwelcome development, but an increasingly necessary way forward. We must find the means by which our own agriculture can adjust to those changes.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has done an immense service to this House and to the countryside, in particular in the way in which he has drafted his Motion so that we can concentrate on the economic hardship in the countryside.
Time forbids me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in what I can only describe as a vivid and accurate requiem for the common agricultural policy. I declare an interest as a small farmer and a deputy president of the Countryside Alliance.
Perhaps I may briefly look at what I feel are the main economic problems. The BSE crisis is exacerbated by the continuing refusal of the French and the Germans to accept our exports. The brief that we have received indicates that the pig industry is well served by its association. We recognise the problems it has with cheap imports and the very high standards of pig welfare imposed on our pig farmers. We must find a way of adjusting those into a more economic frame.
I should like to deal with two other points. First, the old threat of modulation is now a reality in the countryside. The Agenda 2000 reforms allowed voluntary modulation among the member states of the European Union on one condition: that the money saved in modulation was put back into green box rural development schemes. When she responds to the debate, I think that the Minister will agree that originally her department wanted to abolish the direct aid payments for both the arable aid and headage payments. Instead of achieving that, we are taking a small step in the right direction but on the wrong basis.

1095
Under modulation we can start reducing these payments over the period 2001 to 2006 by a maximum of 20 per cent. The IACS payments come direct from Brussels, but the green box payments, these payments that we are now saving, have to be matched by the Treasury. So we can see another element which does not make it easy for the noble Baroness—even if she wished—to help in this way.
Perhaps I may look quickly at the figures for the next six years: £500 million for countryside stewardship schemes; £140 million for organic conversion; £100 million for farm woodlands; and only £40 million for marketing, where more money could make an enormous difference in the present economic circumstances.
When she comes to respond to the debate, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to the industry, particularly in regard to a matter on which I have pressed her before. On what business units are the modulation payments based? Today many farmers amalgamate in order better to use their capital and equipment. The modulation payments should be made on the basis of the acreage owned and not on the acreage of an economic business unit. The Minister could help if she took the remaining 80 per cent of these payments and paid them under the environmental cost compliance payments. I doubt whether the Treasury would allow her to do that, but it would help if she could say what progress she is making.
In conclusion, perhaps I may deal with one other economic matter. I was privileged to represent in another place one of the major plant breeding establishments in the country at Rothwell. The economics of agriculture demand an improvement in plant characteristics in order to lower production costs and increase yields on existing farmland. The very people who are against genetically modified crops are surely in favour of not increasing the acreage that is cropped throughout the rest of the world.
The Government have run away from the question of genetically modified crops. The farming industry as a whole needs this new tool to obtain the benefits of improved seeds. We must not be deprived of our place in the world market in the development of this science. Despite the reassurances of the scientific community, people may not be convinced about the safety of genetically modified products. The Government should put into effect, as recommended by the Agricultural Select Committee, a proper system of labelling of genetically modified food. People can then choose either organic products or genetically modified products.
In the time available, those are my four points which I believe could help the industry economically.
6.4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I am involved in agriculture, I, too, should declare an interest. I thank
1096
the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, not only for introducing the debate but for the very clear and constructive way in which he spoke.
He said, quite rightly, that farming is going through its worst depression for 60 years. That is so. Some 22,000 farmers and their staff have left the industry in the past 12 months; 10 per cent of farmers are on antidepressants; 25 per cent of tenant farmers have marital problems due to the crisis; 50 per cent of tenant farmers have difficulty in finding the rent; and 80 per cent have stopped or reduced investment. That is a fairly grisly story.
If one looks at the pig industry—as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, did—one finds that the number of pig farmers, their workers and those who supply the pig industry has dropped by 30,000 since the start of the crisis, and another 30,000 are under threat.
Dairy farms are running at a loss. The UK price of milk is 16p per litre; the price in Denmark is about 26p per litre. I understand that some people in the United Kingdom are getting even 13p per litre, with the likelihood that that may be cut by 2p per litre. Milk is now becoming cheaper than bottled water.
What are the causes of all this? One of the causes is that conditions in the European Union are not equal. Imported pig products can be packed in the United Kingdom and sold as British food. Imported meat is often produced under conditions which are banned in the United Kingdom and, therefore, it is produced more cheaply. Sow stalls are banned, yet doing away with them puts up the cost of a pig by £2.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the fact that combined harvesters and chemicals are much cheaper on the mainland of Europe. That is so. But the worst problem is the strong pound: £2,000 million of agrimoney has been made available since 1997 for the United Kingdom to accept for exactly this position. When a country's currency rises, it is entitled to claim it. Other countries have done so; we could do so. Some £2,000 million is available; only £520 million has been claimed. Many bad things are said about the European Union, but if there is something that the United Kingdom can take advantage of, we should do so.
The Government can help. I know why they do not: the Treasury is frightened. The Treasury is always frightened. But we are seeing an industry going down the pipe, as it were. That does not worry the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—he thinks that that is okay—but it worries most of us. It is unnecessary because the Government can help.
I do hope that the Minister will not say "Restructuring the common agricultural policy is the answer". Of course it needs to be restructured, but that is long-term stuff. When one talks about the industry restructuring itself, sometimes that seems to be ministerial speak for "Let them go bust" or "Let them get into larger farms".
The environment and wildlife are the "in" thing. The noble
Lord, Lord Sewel, referred to that too. He said that he would like the environment to be looked after. I do not think he mentioned wildlife, but that was part of it. I do not believe that this country should be

1097
viewed as a place for a kind of grandiose gardening scheme. Agriculture is important, and upon the success of agriculture depend all these other things. The Government can help but, if I may respectfully say so, they do not.
The climate change levy cost the industry 10,000 jobs and 11 million in the first year. Ask any farmer and he will tell you that bureaucracy is becoming intolerable. The hedgerow regulations—those lovely things—criminalise people for taking out hedges, and yet the European Union is to introduce regulations which will criminalise people who allow hedges to grow too big and to grow into fields. That is a complete contradiction. One really must allow some latitude to people in agriculture.
We have gone completely crazy over pesticides and chemicals. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball with regard to genetically modified foods. We do not know what they are, but they should be given a chance to be tested properly. I hope that the Government will condemn Greenpeace—the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—for vandalising other people's crops and trespassing on their land. It is wrong; it is inflammatory. The dear old BBC puts a picture of this time after time on the news, inferring that that is what is being done.
Perhaps I may make one further request. Under the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in Scotland it will be wrong to kill a mammal with more than one dog. Farmers who are plagued by rabbits normally shoot with a number of dogs. That will become a criminal offence. The Prime Minister said,
"Let me make this clear. As long as I am Prime Minister, I guarantee this Government will not allow any ban on shooting or fishing".
Will the Minister please confirm that?
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing this debate. It is a further opportunity to draw attention to the parlous state of farming and to the wider rural economy which depends entirely on the well-being of farming.
The debate is about economics. Let me pose the question: what economic factors need to be in place for it to be possible for an industry to flourish? In this case, what are the economic prerequisites for a thriving agricultural industry? They are fairly obvious: fertile land; a good climate, a well-trained and well-motivated workforce equipped with efficient machinery; measures in place to guarantee food safety, such as traceability of livestock; good standards of animal welfare to reassure the public; a large market nearby, a substantial population needing food; and—an economic as well as an environmental benefit—short distances over which the food needs to be transported.
By what mischance or combination of inaction, folly, obstinacy or human error have we reached the point at which our farming industry—which is richly blessed with both natural and man-made advantages,
1098
including all the economic prerequisites I mentioned, and ought to be immensely flourishing—is in a state of acute crisis? Why is the rural economy malfunctioning to such a disastrous degree, and what can the Government do about it? In a moment I shall mention some ideas, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
First, perhaps I may mention the important debate which took place a week ago in the General Synod of the Church of England. The Synod passed a unanimous Motion addressed both to Church people and to government, expressing its strong concern for the farming industry: for farmers, farm workers and their families, and especially for the particularly hard hit tenant farmers. There was appreciation of the direction in which government policy is moving with the rural development regulation proposals, and much appreciation of a helpful letter from the Minister, Nick Brown, received by the Synod just before the debate, setting out the basis for a long-term farming strategy. But there was an urgent plea for short-term help, so that businesses can survive to take advantage of the new opportunities that we hope to see. We called for a retirement scheme for those who want to leave the industry with dignity and are presently trapped in it; for much more rigorous and informative food labelling; for a reduction in the crippling burden of red tape and paperwork; for further help for those voluntary organisations which are struggling valiantly to provide pastoral support; and help to the victims of the present crisis. Church people were urged to support that work, and to buy locally produced food. It was an important and deeply serious debate. The mood was sombre, but not entirely without hope.
So what do we ask of the Government in order to keep that hope alive? Clearly, there are some things that the Government cannot do. They cannot undo the globalisation of trade and the enormous increase in the amount of imported food that is available. However, I suggest that the Government could do five things. First, they could have a more careful regard for the delicate and complex inter-relationship of economic factors in farming: for example, the removal of the crippling abattoir charges which threaten to destroy meat production and precisely the kind of diversification which the Government say they want to see.
Secondly, we ask the Government to draw down the agrimonetary compensation which was negotiated, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, precisely to tide farmers over this kind of currency fluctuation. Yes, it would mean match funding. Yes, it might mean the end of the UK rebate. But it would trigger more EU money, since Brussels' contribution to the EDRP and Objective 2 depends on current spending levels.
Thirdly, we ask the Government to abandon the uniquely pedantic way in which the UK interprets EU directives, with enormous cost consequences, especially in meat inspection charges. Fourthly, we ask the Government to set manageable financial thresholds for the help that is on offer. At present, many small farmers who are most in need find that

1099
they cannot afford to benefit from the help that is on offer. That is particularly true in relationship to the mechanism of countryside stewardship.
Fifthly, we ask the Government not to impose the proposed pollution tax on pig and poultry farmers and to lift the threat of the climate change levy on horticulture. All of those are theoretically virtuous taxes, but they would have the effect of further damaging or destroying these fragile businesses and helping our overseas competitors. In the UK it would mean more unemployment, more distress and, in the end, greater cost.
The farming industry has changed, is changing and is trying to help itself. But in the short term it faces real disaster: a domino effect of one sector dragging down another. As pig and poultry farmers go out of business, they will stop buying feed from their arable neighbours, creating an agricultural melt-down on a scale that will make today's heartbreak, anger and distress look quite trivial.
Heartbreak, anger and distress are not economic factors but they have economic causes, and economic solutions are available. We hope and pray that the Government will do all in their power to provide those solutions. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said: let us do what we do best. I absolutely agree. We have a brilliant farming industry. Let it do what it is best at doing.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declare an interest as a taxpayer. Agricultural policy in this country is no longer stacking up. MAFF spends £3 billion of public money. and what is the result? We have food surpluses; a loss of public confidence in food; a decline in the agriculturally related element of rural communities—although I must stress that other elements of rural communities are showing remarkably robust performance figures. We certainly have a degraded countryside and a serious decline in wildlife. And 50 per cent of farmers are in financial trouble. I say 50 per cent. There are, of course, 50 per cent who are not. We should not overlook the point that the present level of agricultural incomes is no lower in real terms than it was in 1985 and 1990. We have seen successive emergency bale-outs to the agricultural industry, on top of the £3 billion, of £787 million since 1997. So the public have a right to question that scale of public support, and a right to ask what they are getting for their money.
There have rightly been calls for a new future for the agricultural industry. But the new future that seems to be envisaged is one that needs to be questioned. It implies restructuring, bigger holdings, more efficient, competitive farming, able to hold its own and to export at world market prices. I should like to challenge that single model. In terms of what is needed for the future, it is only one of a range of models, all of which need to co-exist and some of which will need public subsidy for the future.
As we have seen over the past 15 years in the forestry industry, we want to see a move towards multi-purpose farming which is about safe and
1100
healthy food production, environmental management, diversification to provide opportunities for access and recreation, and building new social and community fabrics within the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked whether the Government wanted a thriving agricultural industry. I am sure that the answer must be yes—but not at the current social, environmental and economic cost.
My idea for a new model of multi-purpose farming is not a new one. However, it deserves some exploration of its components. There would indeed be some intensive, competitive, large-scale farming which would not be dependent on subsidy, although I hope that even within competitive and intensive farms we should see space for minimum environmental conditions and places for wildlife.
Alongside some areas of the countryside where that intensive agriculture would take place there would also be a whole range of other models: organic farming, depending primarily on premium prices rather than on subsidy, although possibly with some subsidy to pump-prime the process. There may well be other premium price accreditation systems which can be developed and which are different from the organic system but nevertheless desired by the public.
We should also see local farming systems developed: niche farming, regional produce and local production and marketing. Some subsidy will be necessary to help pump-prime those local and often environmentally sound farming systems. But we should also see some marginal farms, which by no stretch of the imagination would the market support. Their major products will be other public goods, countryside management, landscape, access, wildlife, the environment and the environmental services that many eco systems provide. We should not be ashamed to support them through subsidy because they are providing public goods that we all need and require.
We want diversification in many of those systems. Already 58 per cent of farmers receive money from outside their farms. We also want all those systems to deliver minimum environmental standards and perhaps receive subsidy also for environmental management over the minimum.
There will soon be more than £300 million in environmental payments, all aimed at counteracting the damage caused by the £3 billion of mainstream perverse subsidy. The Government deserve credit for recent moves to enhance the figure to that level, but why is that money being spent simply to remove the adverse effects of mainstream subsidy? Swift progress needs to be made with the new model of diverse agriculture that I described and reform of the perverse subsidy systems. There may be savings in public expenditure for a higher level of public benefit. That might even please the Chancellor.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I declare an interest, as I farm extensively in one of England's remote rural areas where there are more sheep than people, close to the noble Lord. Lord Palmer—to whom we are indebted for this timely debate.

1101
Behind all our considerations lies the basic problem that no country wants to run out of food. Governments world wide subsidise their agriculture to ensure supply. The consequence is over-production. When a commodity is in surplus, prices naturally fall. Governments move in with additional subsidies, which in turn create even more surpluses and prices fall still further. Farming internationally is now in that phase.
We also have in power a new generation of politicians who have never personally faced the rigours of food rationing and are fed up with the whole subsidy exercise, and whose instinct is to say, "Why not let agriculture go hang?"
Agriculture is different because it works to a far slower timescale than most industries. It cannot be switched on and off. It takes 10 years to build a balanced dairy herd and six years to build an age-balanced sheep flock. Live animals cannot be kept in store but must be sold, whatever the market price. Agriculture is deeply dependent on the weather. Last but not least, it is directly exposed to basic world commodity prices at market clearing rates.
It is a chimera to imagine that the world can produce food at the prices on offer. Only 5 per cent of world foodstuffs are traded. The rest are disposed of under other arrangements, at higher prices.
Britain is exposed to the effects of an over-valued pound. It is all very well to say that farmers should hedge exchange rate volatility but that is not possible given that farming is done in small packets. An industry that is the least
inflationary of all is currently crucified by the high pound against the euro. It is a pity that the Government do not take advantage of the agrimoney compensation arrangements, which were specifically designed to alleviate that problem.
There is a real problem—not least confirmed by the ghastly figure for suicides among farmers. Prices have dropped between 10 per cent and 30 per cent in most sectors. Milk is selling at half the price of bottled water in supermarkets. Four years ago, agricultural output in this country was roughly £20 billion annually and was one of our biggest industries. Output is now £16 billion. The impact on rural areas is enormous and no amount of diversification can fill the gap.
The underlying problem is that agricultural products are too cheap. Supply and demand have got out of balance. If food
is being sold well below the cost of production, who is subsidising whom? America currently has massive farm bankruptcies and the home of free enterprise is not letting its farms go into free fall. America is subsidising its farmers, as is Canada, by billions of dollars a year because prices have fallen too low to sustain output.
One school of thought is that we should abandon agriculture and import our needs. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel—who is no longer in his place—may be among those who think that. That argument is attractive and simple but wrong. If we abandon agriculture we would have to import 20 million tonnes of grain, which would have an electrifying effect on the Chicago market. Prices would go roaring up and,
1102
apart from a balance of payments crisis, consumers would be no better off. There is also no way that America or Canada could supplant Europe's grain needs. America's grain production is some 300 million tonnes a year. Europe's is 200 million. Attempting substitution by American or other world production would be wholly unrealistic and largely unnecessary in terms of comparative advantage.
It is essential that governments make certain that grain is priced at a level that will ensure enough production without creating a level of farm bankruptcies that would undermine supply.
What, then, is the most appropriate mechanism for governments to support agriculture and thereby much of the rural economy that so depends on it? Food is currently too cheap. The customer buys food cheaply but subsidises the farmer indirectly through the tax system. We used to have a deficiency payment system that supported the markets at a price at which the average farmer could just make a living and no more. Good farmers did better, bad farmers did worse. The consumer benefited by direct low prices. We should try to persuade our European Union masters to return to that system.
As a nation, we need to make up our minds whether we want an agricultural industry that competes on level terms with the rest of Europe, is not handicapped by bearing the direct costs of excessive regulation and can pay a decent wage to its workers—to enable them to share in the national prosperity to which they have contributed so hugely over the past few years.
We are dealing with a huge, complex and varied industry. The subject needs to be considered factually and unemotionally. I hope that this debate will contribute in that way.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, earlier today we had an excellent debate on defence. But there are good precedents for beating our swords into ploughshares. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this debate. It could not be better timed.
Before considering the action taken recently by the Government and the action they might take in the interests of British agriculture, how is it that farming in Britain—which flourished for many years under the common agricultural policy loved by agriculture Ministers and unloved by economists—finds itself in severe difficulties? It is surprising how often the new direction of agricultural policy launched by the MacSharry reforms of eight years ago and implemented by governments in recent years, and the decisions taken at Berlin last March, do not seem widely comprehended. There are sleeping beauties everywhere and a kiss or two is needed to bring them into the new millennium.
There are three principal reasons for British agriculture being in recession, with a fall of almost £4 billion in output value since the mid-1990s and a drop of 60 per cent in income in real terms. The first is the change in agricultural policy, which is reducing or

1103
removing support from market operations—fully or partially replacing it with direct grants to farmers. When I was in Brussels many years ago and we were spending £17.5 million a day on agricultural support in the European Community, I used to ask whether anyone had ever seen a cheque to a farmer. The answer was never, because support was primarily given by intervention in the market, export refunds to traders and so on.
Has anyone in recent years seen a support price increase for an agricultural product? The answer is that there have been practically none. Prices are being frozen or reduced to world price levels. It has been government policy for some years to reduce agricultural support prices, at least in real terms—thus benefiting the consumer—and move to direct compensation for farmers, that being likely to increase the cost to the taxpayer. Those changes can be illustrated by the latest package of March 1999 when the decision was taken to cut the cereals intervention price by a further 15 per cent in two steps from July this year, the beef intervention price by 20 per cent over three years and the support price for milk by 15 per cent from 2005, and increase some direct grants in consequence. Those price cuts will give an economic benefit of about £1 billion a year and, if passed through to consumers, will knock about 2 per cent off the retail food price index. The direct grant and other changes will increase the EU budget costs by about 2.5 billion euros when all the changes are fully implemented. The Government estimate that those measures will knock about 5 per cent off total farm income, although some may be regained by the separate rural development measures.
The second reason, which has already been mentioned, is the strong pound. Important sectors of agriculture are tied into a system of support prices and direct payments. Too much so, of course, but we must face facts. Under the agricultural policy these prices and payments are expressed in euros. It is thus a genuinely common policy for farmers in 11 other European Union states, and possibly soon in 14, but because the UK is outside the euro zone British farmers suffer exchange rate risks, not just through the markets but also through the support arrangements. The question is whether we have done enough to minimise the disadvantages which British farmers suffer from our non-participation m the euro zone. I think not.
The third reason is that British farming is still suffering from the consequences of the BSE epidemic, about 150,000 cattle having been lost directly from contracting the disease and with widespread disruption of farming and the food supply chain. I recognise that the Government are currently bearing some of these costs, in particular the cost of inspections, the removal of specified risk material and the cattle passport, but the beef industry suffers continuous losses of value. Other costs fall also on pigs, poultry and sheep. We are still paying a high price for not rigorously respecting the law on the ruminant feed ban.
1104
Now for the good news and what might be done. For supermarkets and consumers it is good news almost everywhere. For farmers there are some signs of recovery in prices. US winter wheat plantings are at their lowest level in 28 years and lamb prices have recovered, finally hitting £1 per kilo. There is also good news from the government side given the way in which the rural development plan for England, which was launched by the Minister on 2nd February, is being actively pushed forward, with very good officials engaged in this work, including the countryside stewardship scheme, and emphasis on the environment and the wider rural economy, financed by EU funds and modulating payments under direct grants.
I propose to the noble Baroness two actions. First, the cost of inspection of specified risk material from cattle and sheep should be considered, correctly, as a protection of human health and should be borne by public funds, not just for a period but indefinitely. Secondly, the Government should adopt the principle that funds available from the European Union for agri-monetary compensation should normally be taken up fully, not partially, and matched by the national contribution. I understand that the amount at issue is about £225 million from the EU and £225 million from national funds in the year 2000. Even allowing for our budget contributions to the EU payment and the effect of the budget rebate, there would be a substantial payment—about £65 million, I believe—to British farmers by taxpayers in other European Union countries. Why do we not accept this kind gift from foreign taxpayers?
6.33 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his masterly introduction to this debate and exposure of the problems that face British farming today. Some years ago Noel Coward wrote a song entitled, "Bad Times are Just Around the Corner", which contained the lines,
"In rather vulgar lettering a very disgruntled group
have posted bills in the Cotswold Hills to prove we're in the
soup".
I declare an interest as a member of a very disgruntled group of Cotswold Hill farmers.
For British farmers bad times are not just around the corner; I fear that they are already here. We are hurting badly, as we have already heard this afternoon. I am sure that we shall hear more from other contributors later. What rubs salt and pepper into the wounds of British farming is that the Government seem to be unable to offer much beyond platitudes and bromides. The Prime Minister on his visit to the west country encouraged farmers to diversify, for example into organic farming. I remind noble Lords that the door has been slammed in the face of many would-be applicants because the organic farming scheme has run out of money. In any case, can organic farming ever provide more than, say, 5 per

1105
cent, or a tiny amount, of British farm income? It is certainly not a solution to the difficulties that face the whole of British agriculture today.
How can the Government make encouraging noises about diversification and enterprise when they increase rather than decrease the burden of regulation on small businesses, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out in his introduction? A good example of that is the Meat Hygiene Service. The Government like to say that they are listening. I am aware that the noble Baroness does listen to our debates and Questions very carefully, but sometimes it appears that her department has turned off its hearing aid. If the Government are listening, why is the MoD still buying 75 per cent of its chickens from France when that country is rubbishing our beef and still banning it illegally from sale? I produce exhibit A, which is a bottle of French milk bearing the label,
"Savourez-le! … Il n'a subi aucum traitement conformémeut à la réglementation".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but I believe that he is out of order in producing an exhibit and displaying it in the Chamber.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I apologise. I simply illustrate that French farmers pay absolutely no attention to the rules of the EU which bind everybody else. Why do we not, just occasionally, take a leaf out of their book? If the Government are listening, why does the MoD buy 98 per cent of its lamb abroad at a time when British sheep prices and British sheep farmers are at rock bottom? If the Government are listening why do they not do something about the scandal of the thousands of pigs imported into this country which are fed on meat and bone meal? If that material was fed to pigs in this country the farmer responsible would face a criminal prosecution.
If the Government are listening, will the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture explain why they all voted for the stall-and-tether ban on pig production in this country but did absolutely nothing to ensure that government catering establishments used pig meat from British farms which conformed to our very much higher welfare standards?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, with whom I agree, I ask why, if the Government are listening, last Friday they talked out the Private Member's Bill on food labelling of the right honourable Member for Eddisbury which would have ensured that consumers in this country, if they so wished, could buy British and not Thai or Brazilian produce with a British flag stamped on it?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, vigorously pursued a point on which I am in agreement with him. I can do no better than quote the words of the noble Baroness in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Inglewood—
"The common agricultural policy, as currently structured, does not serve farmers, consumers and taxpayers well".—[Official Report, 28/2/00; col. WA 51.]
1106
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, underlined that point by pointing to the deficiencies of the common agricultural policy. What he did not do was to follow it through to its logical conclusion. We should get out of the common agricultural policy, which is a total disaster, as everyone agrees. If we did so we would save £4.5 billion a year in contributions to the European budget which we could then spend on our own agricultural sector. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that some of that money could well be spent on environmental improvements and goods. We would have about El 1 million a day to spend on the agricultural and environmental sectors if we were bold enough to leave the common agricultural policy.
If the Government—whether the present one or any other does not matter—are unable or unwilling to dismantle the CAP, they will preside over the inevitable decline of British agriculture.
6.38 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for enabling us to air our concerns on this subject tonight. I express a desire that the Government will at last act as well as listen. We have heard repeated statements about the support provided to farmers by the Government, yet when the figures are analysed it is impossible not to compare the £1,000 per head of rescue funds which the Government claim to have spent on agricultural workers with their willingness to contemplate a subsidy package of £2 million to prevent the closure of the Longbridge car plant. That is equivalent to more than £14,000 per job in an industry where there is 300 per cent overproduction.
Subsidies, designed to encourage farmers to grow specific food crops and to breed livestock that were in short supply during and after the Second World War, have become like a fix to a drug addict. As with an addict, any excuse will be found to avoid confronting the truth. Subsidies in the form of the CAP are no longer the answer for the control of agricultural production, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and others have so clearly indicated. What is required is a realistic system for pricing agricultural products—one that takes into account the fact that the whole community benefits from the way in which a farmer works his land and cares for his stock.
We are told that there is a surplus of many agricultural products. There may well be in the EU as a whole, but why do the latest government figures show that in the UK there is a food trade deficit of £8.5 billion? That compares with a food trade surplus of £5.7 billion in France. It is hard to comprehend the reason why it is our farmers who are told that they are overproducing when, at the same time, we seem to be forced to accept from abroad products that could well be produced here. Our average household spends only II per cent of its income on food; the French spend nearly 25 per cent.
I live not far from the Vale of Evesham. It was once renowned for the excellence of the fruit and vegetables grown in its fertile soil. Now most of the holdings lie

1107
derelict. Instead, we are told that we prefer fruit and vegetables, imported at great expense, from the four corners of the earth. I say "we are told" because there are now strong indications that not all of our population are prepared to believe that. There has been an enormous growth in farm gate sales and in farmers' markets for value added goods produced locally.
Here I declare an interest as my husband and I have a small farm in Worcestershire where we produce milk and cheese from our goats and, in season, lamb from our small flock of Black Welsh Mountain sheep. All our products are sold locally. It is our aim to supply a choice of wholesome food at prices that provide us with a reasonable return and are considered to be reasonable by our customers. In addition to our work on the farm, my husband and I both have to work in other fields. We are now working harder than we have ever done simply to stand still.
It is the numerous small farmers, like my husband and me, who help to maintain the countryside so beloved of the townsfolk and visitors from abroad. Most of those farmers are now desperately struggling to survive. They have an inherent love of the land and an appreciation of its wider value that does not seem to be understood by their urban counterparts. They are proud and independent men and women who do not want to be reliant upon state handouts. What they need is practical help in those areas where they lack expertise. Marketing and market research are not skills that come naturally to farmers. The promotion of choice, wholesome, locally grown products is beyond their means. The socio-economic value of a successful agricultural sector to the population needs to be understood. I spoke about that in a recent debate. We also need the application of a large pinch of good sense by the bureaucrats who govern so much of our daily lives. I appreciate that this will not provide answers for all food producers and consumers, but it will help substantial numbers of them.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I have no great expertise in agricultural economics. My first experience was as a small boy when a local farmer stopped his tractor and asked my friend and I whether we would like to earn half-a-crown by helping him to dig potatoes. So we helped him to pick potatoes: he then gave us sixpence. We pointed out that he had mentioned half-a-crown. He said, "I only asked whether you would like to earn half-a-crown, not that I would pay it".
I have represented farmers for a long time. While that does not mean that I am an expert, I am aware of the grave anxiety they feel. I share the deep unease, even sickness, which some experienced recently. Three factors underlie the problem; they have been identified. The ramifications of the strong
pound have been spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I trust that the last points in his speech will receive much
1108
attention from Her Majesty's Government. The second factor is the BSE crisis. It is a great pity that the whole business was not managed better 10 years ago.
The third factor—it is hurting many small farmers in south Yorkshire—is (if I may use the term without being patronising) the death of the peasant or cottage economy. In recent months, one of my friends has had to get rid of 5,000 hens because the little grocer shops which he
serviced for a long time cannot compete with the supermarkets. A pig farm two or three miles away went bankrupt last month despite having spent £75,000 on capital equipment and improvements to comply with regulations in the United Kingdom.
An anxiety expressed to me at the weekend is that the estimates for the yield and returns for wheat and barley this year are likely to bring the arable sector into a state of unease. Even if American production is reduced, it seems possible that, unless the land is good, the yield and returns even with subsidy may border close to the cost of production. That does not bode well for that sector.
I share the view that farmers must win friends. I was horrified recently when I learned that one farmer in south Yorkshire proposes to pull down about a mileand-a-half of hedgerow in order to improve production. We do not need that. Farmers do not need the hostility that such a destruction of the natural heritage would create. Farmers must continue to farm the land but also act, perhaps increasingly, as stewards of the British ecology. I believe that on this side of the House we have an obligation to press the case for such support as will maintain activity in rural Britain.
I was extremely anxious about the countryside and access proposals. I know how difficult are the experiences of farmers living close to conurbations. The nuisance of litter, damage and destruction can be utterly discouraging. I am pleased to note that Schedule 8 to the Bill has a prohibition on access by mechanically-powered vehicles. If farmers are to be assisted in the maintenance of their role as stewards, we shall have to ensure a more capable, comprehensive police service in rural Britain. Crime is not concentrated universally in the cities. Farmers often have unfortunate experience. Police resources must be extended further away from town centres.
I trust that my noble friend will take from the debate the serious anxiety about many sectors of agriculture. We need to see a more positive approach from the Ministry of Agriculture. At times I found it extremely bureaucratic as a constituency MP. The last case that I put before the ombudsman before I ceased to be an MP was resolved some months after I entered this House. I was pleased to see that we won our case—a case which should never have had to go to the ombudsman—and a local farmer received a substantial payment. That payment should have been made in the first place without the anxiety, anger and acrimony which developed.
In that regard I was distressed by the speed with which the Ministry of Agriculture sought to respond to the EU's proposals on field boundaries. It could have been more robust. I cannot envisage our French

1109
neighbours and others inside the European Union taking such swift action which their people would not have liked. I trust that the Ministry will support those farmers who care for the natural heritage. There are many of them. They need to be encouraged and assisted so that more will follow suit.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I have been reading the report on the rural economies from the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office. On page 5 it states, quite correctly, that in the late 1940s government,
"viewed agriculture's primary role as to ensure security of food supply".
On the next page it states that,
"the values, belief's and behaviours on which post-war policy was based have not proved to be permanent".
The report states later that,
"many people now value rural England more as a source of environmental goods than as a place for food production".
I have no doubt that that is true, but I have severe doubts about whether it is relevant to the job of government, whose duty it is to see past the public perceptions to the truths and in particular the dangers of any given situation.
Nowhere does the report raise any question about the security of our food supply. It is interesting to note that during the past few years in various parts of our tumultuous world the food supply has been severely curtailed or stopped altogether. Our current high quality food security is not immutable. Surely, the casual assumption that our high quality food sources are sufficient and safe for ever should not be taken for granted.
The net incomes of livestock farmers are running at 50 to 70 per cent of those of 1991. Mixed farmers are doing slightly better and only the incomes of cereal farmers are holding at around 1991 levels. However, average prices do not show the whole picture. I was a mixed farmer, but, sadly, I am now only a cereal farmer. Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I began farming with about 17 farming staff, but now have a permanent staff of only three and I now farm considerably more hectarage.
In the past three months since December, the strength of the euro against the pound has fallen by about 15 per cent. I could have just about paid a notional rent in December, but today I could pay only 60 per cent of that. I believe that I am one of the top 25 per cent best performing farms. I shudder to think what the future is for the tenant farmers who pay rent.
Reports from the NFU and the Tenant Farmers' Association indicate that this year most of them will make a loss. Loss-making tenant farmers will do the same as many of the 20,000 farmers did last year—they will quit the industry, many of them taking nothing with them but their skill and expertise.
"Crisis, what crisis?". It is one that is all too real for a number of families and individuals. It is one that may have serious repercussions two, 10 or perhaps 20 years
1110
from now. The Government seem to be in denial over the crisis and I suppose that they should no longer be relied on to help. Quite the contrary, the Government will impose more millstones on this once world heating industry in the form of modulation. The current crisis could bring about structural changes of an unprecedented scale within the agricultural industry. The likelihood is that farms will increase in size and that the number of animals in herds will also increase. Soon the small tenant farmers will all but disappear.
"The people" with whom the Government consult so assiduously want choice, high quality, and above all, cheap food. But are they getting it at the moment? Choice and cheap food, yes,
but what about the quality of imported foods? As Joyce Quin told Stephen O'Brien last week in another place, we may not tell the consumers which of the products on sale are produced in other countries to welfare and hygiene standards well below those imposed by our own Government on our own farmers. We may not inspect incoming produce for dioxins, raw sewage or even BSE. We may not highlight organic produce from land that has undergone a conversion period of less than half that demanded here. That is particularly important as 80 per cent of such foods are imported.
Last week. I returned in the Eurostar from the Continent. The dinner menu was veal. It was certainly not grown in Britain because our animal husbandry standards make us virtually non-competitive. But what a lovely easy way to avoid having to offer British products; and, what is more, it is legal under European law.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for providing me with the opportunity of speaking today. I am not declaring an interest because I am a statistic. I have retired from farming. I shall be brief.
I have down in my name the European Communities Select Committee Report on Biodiversity in the European Union, which I hope will come before the House very soon. It is not irrelevant. I do not know which Minister will be answering that debate as the report is an environmental one. However, it includes agricultural and fishery topics in addition to planning, transportation and marine problems. I felt that the DETR would be the relevant department and that MAAF might not become involved. Therefore, in case there is no joined-up government on that day—and I hope that there will be—I felt that I should speak out today.
I do not want to talk about the problems of under-funding or over-production because far more well informed speakers have done or will do so in the debate. That is not to say that I do not have a personal understanding of, and a great sympathy for, the situation that pertains.
I am of course well aware of the plethora of news releases coming out of MAAF and I have found them most confusing. However, No. 43 on countryside

1111
stewardship is a step in the right direction, but underfunded. No. 45 on waste is encouraging. I believe that rethinking the common agricultural policy is essential and the Government failed to achieve what they hoped for in Berlin. That was unfortunate but, I am afraid, in the circumstances understandable.
When we come out of the tunnel—and out of it we must come—farmers will have to realise that they are the custodians of our countryside. I know that many do, but not enough. That fact must also be recognised by the Government. Without government help, no farmer now or in the foreseeable future will be able to afford to do everything that is essential for the preservation of all the aspects of the countryside which many of us hold dear.
Looking well into the future, I believe that farms must be environmentally sustainable, rambler friendly, wildlife friendly, countryside friendly, and, above all, economically viable.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, there is no need for me to recapitulate the ills of British agriculture. The number of speakers in the debate, opened so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is evidence of that. Nor shall I spend time on the short-term ameliorations that are needed. They have been spelt out by a number of speakers and the sooner they are provided the better, in particular help for the organic sector.
I want to concentrate on two points. The first is the immensity of the underlying situation and the second is the toughness of the measures needed. This is not a passing crisis limited to this country; it is a deep-seated, long-term world disaster. It started in this country before the last war, was interrupted by the war and its psychological aftermath, resumed now, and is doomed to continue and become worse indefinitely.
It is the result of unbridled free trade, the purpose of which, as my Liberal forebears rightly knew, was to produce cheap food for the urban poor. That was an admirable objective, but not at the expense of the destruction of the English farming industry and not at the expense of the rural countryside.
If there are those who believe that there can be a recognisable rural England, or Wales, or Scotland without the preservation and, indeed, the restoration of the farming population, they are in error. They have only to see the destruction of rural New England by the competition of the monocultures of the Middle West.
What is to be done? The tide must be turned by a major turnaround and by the abandonment of free trade. We are told that that would mean misery for the third world. That is not so. The protection of food security in all countries and the abandonment of the obscene ferrying of luxury foods over vast distances, consuming immense quantities of fuel, can only do good to everyone.
On Thursday 26th June 1846 at 1.30 a.m., as described by Disraeli in his life of Lord George Bentinck, Sir Robert Peel sat on the Treasury Bench
1112
and watched the gentlemen of England troop into the Lobby against him to save British agriculture. Another such massive, if not so romantic, turnaround must be asked of this Government and of all political parties. Pray God that they will not fail the British countryside in which so many of us and so much of Britain have our roots.
6.59 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am sorry to say that your Lordships do not have Sir Robert Peel; you have me instead! I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing the debate. It is timely.
As noble Lords have quite rightly said, we face a very real crisis in the agriculture industry. One thing is abundantly clear: there is no easy solution. The issues are extremely complex and decision-making is difficult, not only on the farm but also at the Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that we must show sympathy for the noble Baroness and her ministry at this difficult time.
We have all witnessed personal tragedies. I, like other noble Lords, know one or two extremely sad cases, and we must not lose sight of or forget them. We have a duty to do whatever we possibly can. However, what can we do? The truth of the matter is that the industry is undergoing a major shake-up. Although it is tough to admit, I fear that it was inevitable. There are simply too many farmers producing too much food. Modern technology has taken its toll and farmers are, to an extent, the victims of their own success. Having said that, I deplore the attitude of some, and I do not like comments such as, "Oh, the Tories let the miners go to the wall; now we'll let the farmers go to the wall". That is disingenuous and I believe that it is also highly short-sighted.
On the other hand—and this has already been touched on—farmers must realise, as many do, that they have no divine right to subsidies, in whatever guise, any more than any other sector of society. Support through the public purse must be earned and respected. However, I turn to what I believe to be perhaps the real point of our debate today and the real challenge which faces the ministry. Whatever countryside we aspire to, it will all be worthless without cultivation, without livestock (think for one moment of the number of SSSIs that rely on livestock for their conservation and integrity), without management and without farming. Only farmers can deliver what we want and they can do so only if they receive a reasonable return on their capital and on their labour.
Therefore, like other noble Lords, I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to act under the agrimonetary compensation scheme to make allowances for what I might call the "weak euro". As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, that scheme was designed specifically to cope with currency fluctuations. Our farmers really do believe—I think quite justifiably—that they deserve equal treatment with other European farmers and that they are being

1113
deprived of a substantial slice of cash which is owed to them. I ask the noble Baroness whether she and her ministry will deny farmers the money which they deserve.
As for the future, I believe that we shall see greater globalisation, a freer market and greater competition. Who would have thought, for example, that the flower-growingindustry in the Isles of Scilly would now be threatened by flowers being flown in from Kenya? That is the level of competition with which we are having to contend. And we must face up to it. I am afraid that it will mean cost-cutting and a loss of manpower. It will probably mean larger farms, which I would very much regret. However, we must look at common welfare standards. We must look at labelling and certainly at better marketing. Compared to the French, I believe that we are particularly bad at that in this country.
However, it was with great joy that the other day I opened my local Darlington and Stockton Times and saw a photograph of my noble friend Lord Lindsay opening a new launch of Yorkshire lamb. I believe that that is exactly the kind of activity in which farmers in this country should participate more widely. We have already had reference to niche markets, and I believe that there are real opportunities in that direction.
On the question of less red tape, I shall believe that when I see it. I sincerely hope that there will be a greater emphasis on the environment. The CAP has been positively destructive in that regard and we need to see a greater percentage of support in that direction. However, I welcome the steps that the Minister has already taken. Yes, we are already seeing diversification and it will grow, but it will not be the panacea that some people believe. Ultimately, in the remote agricultural areas I believe that farming will still need to be a stable industry that maintains the socio-economic background of the countryside.
We all want to see a diverse, competitive agriculture sector with a much greater environmental commitment to producing healthy food. I have full confidence that, given the opportunity, our farmers can deliver that. However, reform of the CAP must continue. But, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said—and he was absolutely right—we must not forget what happened in America. America withdrew subsidies and its agriculture industry very nearly collapsed. It was derisory of the way that we ran ours, but it came along with huge dollops of money in order to prop up its own industry. Finally, therefore, we must always have that safety net. However, I believe that the composition and structure of the safety net present the real challenge to the Government and to the EU.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Palmer on introducing this very important debate. I must declare an interest as a farmer in north-west Hampshire and as a former chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council.
1114
A recent survey of 30 small and medium-sized abattoirs found that 26 expected to close down, three of them in the week of the survey. That was a matter referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Large abattoirs claim that payment on a headage basis would mean higher costs for them and would make them less competitive on a European scale. That may be true, but the current situation is forcing small plants out of business.
That is of vital importance for a number of reasons. The British livestock sector is suffering from severe recession, especially in pig production, as we have already heard today. While our animal welfare standards and other regulations ensure that our costs are higher than any of our competitors, the strength of sterling enables imports to force down prices. Therefore, the only way that our industry can survive is to produce high quality, organic or added value products that can sell for a premium, especially through farm shops, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, and local outlets and farmers' markets. That is totally impossible without small local abattoirs, as the high throughput centralised plants cannot keep individual carcasses separate.
I turn to the question of sick and injured animals. Without local abattoirs, or knackers' yards, what can a farmer do with fallen stock? At present the hunt kennel is the only means of disposal. If hunting ceased, what then? He cannot shoot the animal and bury the carcass; that is illegal. It is essential to keep open rural abattoirs to prevent unnecessary suffering of farm animals. The rate at which small abattoirs are closing down means that immediate government action is imperative.
Livestock numbers in Hampshire have been falling for years. By the end of this year there may be fewer than 200 dairy herds left in Hampshire. I know that the problem with statistics is that they are always out of date, but at least 18 dairy herds in Hampshire were sold last year and more since. Judging by the notices of dispersal sales in Farmers Weekly, there are many more to come in the near future. They are not small-scale, out-of-date enterprises. Many of them are large, well run herds of up to 200 cows or more.
Beef and sheep farming is hardly more profitable. While beef farmers are recovering slowly from the BSE crisis, sheep farmers have experienced two years of poor returns, with prices only now rising from very depressed levels. The result is that sheep numbers have fallen in that area and many flocks have been sold. I buy approximately 500 North Country Mule ewe lambs each year. In 1996 they cost £74 a head; last year I bought them for £29 a head. Therefore, the effect on the hill farmers from whom I buy must be terrible.
The loss of livestock will have a dramatic effect on the landscape, as will other changes. Poor land will cease to be farmed as it is entered into agri-environmental schemes or set-aside. Even the biggest and most efficient farms are not immune to financial pressures. One agri-business farming some 13,000 acres laid off three men recently by moving away from ploughing towards a minimal cultivation technique.

1115
Several owners are being consulted about future policy, including the option of 50 per cent set-aside, the maximum allowed.
I cannot predict the outcome, but if all agree to such a course of action, 6,500 acres of set-aside in a relatively small area of Hampshire, Wiltshire and Berkshire would certainly have a major impact upon the landscape. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would be extremely worried about that, as she would be about the employment position.
An accountant specialising in agriculture in Hampshire has said that the reserves of many farms are now exhausted and without profits undoubtedly some will be forced out. The current recession is the most severe to hit farming, and I have been farming for over 50 years. If it does not improve soon, it will have the most dramatic impact upon the countryside, something to which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred. And I am extremely worried also about the economic, environmental and social consequences.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, your Lordships will be happy to know that it is half-time and I would like to make a half-time speech. To me, this is quite a remarkable day. I thought that there might be 10 or 12 speakers. Before this date, when I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I said that I would like to talk about animals and economics because for much of my life I have dealt with the economics of food and marketing and when I worked for the Midland Bank, we were called the "farmers' bank".
But, in a way, there is a message which goes out from this House today. It says that we are right behind the farming industry at this time. If we can let the farmers know, by communicating the contents of the speeches today, that we shall use all our endeavours and our best efforts to persuade the public sector, governments and international agencies that we must have a viable agriculture industry in the future, then that message does us much good.
Those of us who are meant to be banking and economic people do not trust government figures; we never have. So taking the government figures on all aspects of the industry, I have over the past two weeks done my own research. The figures always say that one year is not comparable with the last. With that in mind I revisited, by phone and in other ways, areas of land which my family used to farm, totally uneconomically, in Dorset, Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire and Wiltshire. We were disastrous farmers.
My grandfather, who accustomed me to getting up in the morning to milk the cattle, said that he would never dismiss anyone whose family had worked on the land. The land had no value other than the animals and the people it supported. If I recall correctly, we have 18 million hectares of land. We have on that land something like 11 million cattle, 40 million sheep, 8 million pigs, 140 million fowl and 400,000 horses—the same as in Australia, I believe—added to which there is other livestock.
1116
I am a grade 3 Peer so I have no intention of aspiring to talk about grade 1 or grade 2 land. But grade 3 land accounts for roughly 60 per cent of this country. It is totally uneconomic at this time.
Why is that? One always remembers the VAT man and the Customs and Excise man—the dreaded Excise man who destroyed the ability of Cornish farmers to make a little bit of extra money on the side by importing French brandy in order to subsidise their farms. But the most deadly man of all was the man from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. He had the power to enter your land under the protection of the bulls in service Act, the dangerous weeds Act or the Colorado beetle Act. It is bureaucracy which has destroyed grade 3 people.
A good friend of mine and of the noble Lord who has been so wonderful in opening this debate once said to me, "Agricultural land is uneconomic" and I said, "But why is it so highly priced? Why is it that today it has £60 billion of value? Why has the price of land remained so high when the economics of it are so wrong?" He said, "Well, you see, agricultural land is only 50 per cent mortgaged but if you look at the return it ought to have, it would be 100 per cent mortgaged".
It is heavily mortgaged but there is still an asset there. I know not why the price of land is so high but my friend gave me a lovely phrase which I have never forgotten—pride of ownership. In my 49 telephone calls to people, I asked, "Why are you still in agriculture?" They replied, "My father was. I am". There are 350,000 families—husbands, spouses and partners—who love the land and love their animals. In a way, perhaps, one could say that they are foolish but maybe they are wise because suddenly, into the breach, comes the decision that the whole of the south of England is to be covered with houses. I declare an interest because I work for a contractor. But we are after brownfield land. Our countryside is an asset that has no value; it is invaluable. If your Lordships' House supports all that today, we may get somewhere.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating this debate today. I intend to speak on only a couple of issues, the first of which is the pig industry.
In researching for this debate, I spoke to veterinarians and pig farmers. Yes, farming is in crisis. I read the Veterinary Record regularly and I do not believe that matters can get any worse.
In his introduction, my noble friend said that the Prime Minister had pledged to sit down with the farming industry to tackle the immediate crisis. I thought he had already done that on 1st February, in a speech to the NFU because he said:
"I do not rule out further measures to help".
He then continued to have further meetings with representatives of the pig industry. In spite of what has been said today, the UK Government have not offered any help to the pig sector to deal with the problems which BSE has caused. Has the Minister in another

1117
place applied to the Commission for a grant of exceptional occurrence because I am sure that the industry qualifies for it?
So far there has been a great deal of talk from officials but there is nothing yet on offer. We have all heard that time is running out. I would hate to see the Government react with too little and too late, because, by then, the industry really will have been destroyed.
We demanded high welfare standards. The industry complied with that request at considerable cost to itself. I should not wish to see it now forced to abandon the improved welfare standards which we fought so hard to place upon it.
On labelling, I still find that confusing. The country of origin is often difficult to identify. We really must have clear labelling so that consumers are left in no doubt as to where their food comes from. British shoppers do care. But they cannot make informed choices when labelling is less than helpful as to the country of origin. Many people to whom I have spoken are willing to pay a little more in the knowledge that pig and poultry products are produced to a high welfare standard.
We all have a part to play in preserving our own agriculture, which has already done so much to improve its own farm animal welfare. Farm prices are at rock bottom and they show no sign at present of improving. But the plight of farmers is not reflected in the prices that we pay. I hope that the Government will start to turn their promises into action. But the time for that to be done is now. The future may well be too late.
Another matter of concern to veterinarians and farmers alike is the draft regulations which are the work of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. Those regulations will soon be submitted to Ministers for signature. I spoke to an independent nutrition and legislation consultant retained by the George Group about Regulation 13. That regulation seeks to ban all types of feed additive mixtures, unless they are incorporated into feeds.
That has been around since 1970 but has been circumvented or ignored by practically all the 15 countries within the EU, and for good reason too. Its implications for animal welfare are extremely worrying. One example is hypomagnesemia. In cattle that is grass staggers or tetany. It is a rare condition these days because farmers add magnesium salts to the drinking water every day. This method ensures that they get their daily intake of magnesium. Should farmers not be able to carry on adding this mineral daily in water, the result could well be death. Cattle and sheep on extensive grazing cannot obtain sufficient micronutrients only from grass to meet their requirements.
The implementation of Regulation 13 will also cause problems in pigs and poultry. With the demise of "in-feed" antibiotics for growth promotion, there has been much more use of vitamin boosts in times of increased stress. Other companion animals are also affected. As we know, Europe already circumvents that regulation, but if we adopt it we will be adopting all sorts of welfare problems for ourselves because I believe that
1118
we have a habit of employing the type of people who thoroughly relish the job of enforcing every regulation or directive that comes out of Brussels regardless of the consequences. Rules are rules and they have to be obeyed. I do not believe that this country will ever behave otherwise because we dot every "i" and cross every "t". Sometimes I wonder whether officialdom ever gives a thought to the fact that occasionally it might be wrong.
I end with a quote made earlier this year from the past president of the British Veterinary Association, Bob Stevenson. He said,
"Livestock farmers are battening down the hatches and vets are clearly seen as a cost rather than a benefit, with the result that farmers are calling on us less and less".
One does not need a crystal ball to understand what that means. Unless things improve rapidly, animal welfare could be put on a back burner and that would be a very bad thing. It would be very tragic. I hope that that does not happen.
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like so many others, I must declare an interest as a farmer and, perhaps unusually, I am chairman of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation with a particular interest in that respect. Being in the second half of the speakers' list, there is no need for me to repeat the causes of the problems facing UK agriculture. Anyway, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who initiated the debate so effectively, listed the lot. So we do not need to worry any more about the issues. We have identified them as an overvalued pound, over-regulation, historically low commodity prices, high welfare standards in this country and an inappropriate common agricultural policy.
We need to move on in this debate—and many speakers have done so—towards solutions. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, drew attention to an issue to which UK agriculture has to address itself with, one hopes, government help; namely, why is it that we face higher input costs? He mentioned Spanish agrichemicals and continental combines. I could mention many others. If I ordered A1 semen from a named bull that would cost me a lot more than it would cost in Australia. Do not ask me why, but that is true. We know about right-hand drive vehicles in this country, but we have never worked out how on earth it is that we allow ourselves to pay so much more for them. Put together, this amounts to extremely incompetent consumer buying by the agriculture industry. I know that the manufacturers blame the Government, the Government blame the manufacturers and the farmers blame everyone else. We need to get together and sort it out for ourselves. It is a matter which agriculture needs to address. If it finds a problem with regulations it will have a strong case to go to the Government.
But we are locked into a high-cost farming system whereas by now we should have tried to devise a strategy for the industry which recognised lower commodity prices. As so many speakers have said, we are locked into a common agricultural policy which

1119
positively hikes up costs. For example, in the case of milk quotas those who remain in the business have to give a pension to those who have retired if they want to use their quota. Voluntary set-aside is another expensive way of maintaining rents at an artificially high level. Why should one rent land if one can get set-aside payments of over £100 an acre?
Clearly, the Government can have a hand in this. But when we come ultimately to recognise, as speaker after speaker has done, that we have rightly imposed on ourselves higher welfare standards, we have recognised that it is an obligation on all farmers to produce more than just food, although that remains our main product. We must therefore think in terms of rewarding those who produce bio-diversity, nature conservation as well as animal welfare and high food quality.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, said, we need to ensure that the consumer is aware of these advantages and will pay for them. I do not believe that labelling by government regulation achieves that. It is another bureaucracy. It tends to lead to confusion and it is not a very good way of communicating risk or even communicating market attributes.
The problem is that if labelling is government regulated—or worse, EC regulated—people simply do not believe it. There is a good case for privatisation, which I recommend to new Labour. Why do we not have a kite mark scheme owned by consumers or promoted by an independent organisation, not to please the Government or farmers themselves because no one will believe it, but an organisation which tries to give a nominal score to these attributes which we value: bio-diversity, animal welfare, food safety and quality? It would be difficult to get all these together and rated out of a score of 10. Whoever chaired that organisation would have the most appalling difficulty.
I know that organic farmers would treat such a scheme with grave suspicion because it might suggest that other people could produce to the same level of conservation merit as they do, and of course they could. That is why the organic people will be worried. I would very much like to see such a scheme. I hope that it would be recognised that it was the agricultural industry which was supporting it, but not leading it, trying to meet the issues that everyone in the Chamber has recognised.
We have put ourselves into a bind with high cost systems. We are producing far better products than other countries. Our food quality is superb and yet the consumer, even the Government when they are the buyer for the Ministry of Defence, do not seem to recognise that. It is up to us to tell them how they should recognise it.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating this debate on a subject which is not only crucial to our countryside as we know it, but also crucial to the hearts
1120
of all British people whether they live in towns or in the country. We are talking about the whole of Britain, as it is, as it was, and as we hope it will be.
Your Lordships will know the old story of the man who created a beautiful garden from a wilderness, all with his own hands. One evening he was standing admiring its beauty when the local minister came by and admired it, too. The gardener said, "Ay, I've made a grand job of it." The minister reminded him that he must also give thanks to the Almighty. "Ay", said the gardener, "but it was a fair mess when He had it all His own way." So it is with Britain, with our landscape. Much of its beauty is due to the people who have protected it, cared for it, and worked it. We have much to thank farmers for.
Your Lordships have already covered all the other issues—cows, sheep, hens, arable farming and crops, small abattoirs and the fact that while costs, rents, electricity, fuel, machines and wages have all gone up, prices have persistently gone down. So I shall talk just a little about pigs. Like my noble friend Lady Wharton and others, your Lordships may have noticed the charming ladies who inhabit, hock deep, a sty of straw in Parliament Square. They have outside two large notices, "Save our bacon" and "Does Blair care?" Whether the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister does, or does not, care for the lifestyle of pigs, I do not know. But I do know that he was meeting pig farmers today and so I am cautiously optimistic. Perhaps he does care. I know that I care.
Beside the luxurious straw bedding there is what at first sight appears to be an instrument of torture, a sort of iron maiden. It is a very small iron cage into which some pigs on the Continent are tied up so they cannot move. Many foreign pigs are kept in inhumane conditions. To add insult to injury, their end product is subsidised by their governments.
British pigs lead happier lives, but their owners are not subsidised. This demonstration is to help British pig farmers to survive. Many of them have not. I know that I have no wish to eat bacon that has been produced by torturing animals. I am sure that many people will feel the same. If the pig has had a contented, happy life, it is rather different.
I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to know that no one is going to eat those two beautiful large white Tamworth cross pigs, Cherry and Winnie, who have been living in Parliament Square. They are going to a special children's farm where they can be played with and stroked every day. If only there could be a happy ending for all British farmers—including pig farmers—and for our countryside which we all love. I hope that someone in the Government is caring about our agriculture now.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this has been a most remarkable debate; one more unique than any I have experienced so far. It is clear from the speeches made this afternoon that the CAP has no friends whatever. No one has spoken favourably of it. Three or four noble Lords have wished that it would go away

1121
and have been willing to assist in its euthanasia, but the rest, some 17, have stuck daggers in its back. Can we not dispose of it now and agree that the common agricultural policy is a lot of nonsense? Why do we not say so? It simply is not working.
There are many good reasons for that. One important reason was given by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who is temporarily not in his place. He pointed out that agricultural commodities are different from other manufactures in that they comprise animals and plants; entities with life in them which have their own independent rhythm. They cannot be parked on the tarmac like Ford cars if they cannot be sold. They have a rhythm of their own; one allied to that of nature or which is peculiar to a particular species. In the UK, at least, they live on varying types of land.
We must therefore treat agriculture completely differently. It is high time that we said so. There is no need to perpetuate the myth that the common agricultural policy is the be-all and end-all of human existence. It may well be on the Continent, to the extent that it was devised by Germany and France in a deal ultimately consummated in the Elysee Treaty of 1963, in which France agreed to support Germany on certain conditions and Germany agreed to support France. In any case, they would consult together before each Council meeting. We all know that. We all know too the corruption that has occurred, not only at Commission level, but also in the way in which individual political parties in France and Germany have entered into corrupt arrangements in order to finance themselves.
The answer really is simple and can be put within the time limits that we are set. It is clear that we must pay special attention to agriculture. It cannot be treated like any ordinary run of the mill manufacturing or productive industry. All we need to do is to repatriate to our own country any aid and guidance which we need. We are the people who know the climatic conditions, types of animals and variables of nature as they apply to us. Our governments, if they are responsive, can deal with the matter themselves, subject to the correction of another place and indeed ourselves; subject to certain restrictions and the public at large. Why not repatriate the whole business and let us deal with the problem ourselves? I am completely at one with those of my colleagues who say that the agriculture industry must exercise more initiative than it is able to, or is inclined to, at the present time.
Agriculturists must help themselves. There can be no doubt about that. But in agriculture—and I am talking only of agriculture—one must be free of eternal regulation. Today I have been through parts of the European budget for the year 2000; a document of 1,801 pages, which is beyond the capacity of any government Minister, or indeed, his civil servants, to look at. We all know perfectly well of the regulatory regime imposed on us even without parliamentary scrutiny due, if noble Lords have read the comitology report, to the existence of completely independent committees in Brussels under the chairmanship of the Commission, whose regulations have gone directly
1122
onto the statute book without any intervention or scrutiny by the British Parliament. So let us grow up and deal with matters ourselves. I should be most happy to join your Lordships in so doing.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the dreadful state of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. I join those who salute my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating the debate. My noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead correctly and with great clarity drew attention on Monday night to the state of the farming industry in Northern Ireland. I have no wish to waste time going over the same ground except to place the Province in context.
The agricultural food industry is three times more important to the economy of Northern Ireland than it is to the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1999, farm incomes fell in real terms by 23 per cent—considerably more than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Farmers in a small Province now owe over £520 million to the bank and that figure continues to grow. So we know only too well the problem, but what can we do at this stage?
I understand why the Government believe that any measures can be taken only on a total UK basis and not just for Northern Ireland, even if the Province's burden is proportionately much worse. The Ulster Farmers' Union has operated a campaign of awareness of the difficulties and it has highlighted several areas for particular support. I have little doubt that the Government understand the serious position of the farming industry and that a programme of measures is currently being prepared. I look forward to hearing about assistance for the pig industry which, as we all know, is on its knees. An undertaking should be given that all the EU agrimonetary compensation available in the year 2000 will be energetically sought. A positive outcome could be achieved by the consideration of "low incidence" BSE status for Northern Ireland.
Those are important measures, but by their very nature they are short-term measures. The farming industry is the oldest of industries, rooted in all parts of the country and in everyone's life. But the time has come for a more radical reappraisal. A pact must be made between the industry and the Government, each with a major part to play. We must save agriculture but not at the cost of saving all the farmers. Too many have outdated methods of operation in which their farms are considered as a way of life and not as businesses, as they should be.
Farmers, particularly those in Northern Ireland, must be encouraged to look at what they do, how they do it and why. A hard look by any business person when considering the future is vital. If that suggests to him that massive changes must be made, even to the extent of leaving farming, then so be it. I fully understand that by the nature of agriculture as a capital intensive industry, change is slow, and that is where the Government have their part to play. Not so

1123
long ago, the Government rightly supported the miners and their community during the dramatic changes in that industry. So why not put in place an imaginative scheme, including a good deal of lateral thinking, to change totally the farming industry?
We must consider, for example, a compensation scheme for early retirement and for a change of direction. Consideration should be given to methods of relieving loan debt or helping with interest payments. There should be a total refocusing programme to allow the farming community time to reflect and collectively consider the future. If we want farmers to be the stewards of the countryside, fine. But it must be on a business basis. I accept that those will be highly expensive schemes and that they can work only alongside short-term measures such as those discussed in your Lordships' House today, but if we do not grasp the mettle now and simply continue to throw short-term money at the problem, the expense will be just as great and we shall be debating the topic again in 10 years' time. A pact should be made that if the Government put in place schemes and appropriate funding, the farming industry will take steps to change and to reposition itself.
7.39 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, those involved in agriculture pursue their trade with an obsession second to none, so it is not surprising to find that the industry has shown an increase in productivity which amounts to 3.5 per cent over the past 25 years. For most industries that would be sufficient to keep them economically viable and successful, but for farming that is not the case.
The Government tell us that they have devolved agriculture to the Scottish Parliament, so I am delighted that this debate has been led by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and that various other Scots are speaking. At the moment the core problem of agriculture is in our relationship with Europe. The United Kingdom is the forum in which such problems have to be settled, so the Scots will continue to bring their representations to your Lordships' House.
Many times we have heard of the dismal figures that the Government produced last November on farm incomes, but I want to mention the Scottish ones in particular. They show, for example, that in 1998 the average dairy farm had a net income of £4,400, which was a drop of 68 per cent on the previous year. In calculating income for 1999, it is estimated that there was a further 8 per cent drop. Most other sectors experienced similar problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and other noble Lords have drawn your Lordships' attention to the root of the problem, which is the strength of sterling against the euro. I believe your Lordships understand the mechanism by which that affects so many aspects of agriculture. From July 1993, when the conversion was calculated using green pounds, to the present day, the value of the pound has increased by 52 per cent. In regard to the price of milk, mentioned by my noble
1124
friend Lord Ferrers, even if one uses the change in value from 1996 to the present day, a farmer who receives a price of 17p a litre now could argue that without the increase in value of the pound against the euro he should receive 23p. At the moment many are left with a price of merely 15p a litre.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and other noble Lords that we must address the long term, but I am anxious that we should look at the short-term measures required. We have heard much about the financial difficulties of even some of the large producers who are preparing to sell up. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, spoke of Hampshire. The south-west region of Scotland accounts for 85 per cent of the dairy farms in Scotland and it is served by markets at Carlisle, Ayr and Castle Douglas. The market at Carlisle recently had 23 pedigree herds booked for sale, whereas normally at this time of the year it would expect to have only six. The owners of those herds have been prepared to put in the time and the effort to carry out the cataloguing, the clipping, the cleaning and the preparation of their animals. The market estimates that there is an equal number of farmers who will simply send their herds for slaughter. In Ayrshire it is anticipated that another 30 herds will go and there are similar stories from other parts of Scotland. Adding to the frustration is the fact that word is going around that the Lockerbie creamery is buying in milk from France at 11p a litre.
From the west coast and the island creameries, which exist merely to serve their local communities, a different story emerges. Those at Bute and Campbeltown are giving cause for concern. The local agricultural adviser believes that the creamery on Islay has ceased to be viable and that will spell the end of the seven herds that currently supply it.
Those island farmers have cost structures that are hard for most other areas to imagine and they have not been helped by a government policy of having a blanket fuel price escalator applied across the country. The cost of running a reasonable agricultural transport lorry is now about 50p a mile for fuel alone. The transport charge for taking a lorry from Stirling to one of the islands with a load of hay is £800, which, with one of the best large-scale hauliers, works out at £50 a tonne on top of the cost of the hay.
Farmers in that area have experienced an additional frustration in that one of the life-belts that they were offered was the agricultural business improvement scheme. Most farmers who wish to stay in business are prepared to clutch at anything that is offered. Farmers completed the required resource audit, carried out all the work to meet the conditions of the scheme and put in 9,616 applications. By the time the rural affairs department had paid out 5,337 such applications the money had run out, so half of them were left without any recompense for their efforts. A similar pattern is emerging under the countryside premium scheme. I believe that out of those who have applied in Dumfries none has gained approval.
In winding up our debate on the Government's proposals for the milk industry on 9th November of last year, the Minister said that the Government's

1125
priority is a thriving dairy industry that can compete in world markets. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the strength of the pound has now become the main force driving the restructuring of our agricultural industry. That is surely a fairly impermanent feature of the economy. Can the Minister tell the House how much of our milk production the Government are prepared to hand over to imports when it is a commodity that has strategic as well as vital health implications? It is also a product to which this country is eminently suited.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing this debate. Many noble Lords have spoken of the plight of farmers so I shall not speak on that subject. Judging by an Answer that the Minister gave on 9th February, it seems to me that the Government's policy is to say to farmers that their problems can be solved by increasing
efficiency. I am not entirely convinced that that is a realistic assessment. We already have one of the most efficient agricultural industries in the world.
I want to address the possibility that we face an unavoidable, real agricultural recession of the nature that we endured in the 1920s and 1930s. An agricultural recession does not lead to increased efficiency. As some noble Lords have indicated is beginning to happen it leads to retrenchment; it leads to battening down the hatches, as the noble Baroness. Lady Wharton, said; it leads to dereliction of land and rusting machinery; it leads to a flight of enterprise and skill from the land; and it leads to a flight of capital from the land.
That happened in the 1920s and 1930s and when the war started it was a struggle to get the land back into production. In those days I was 14. I remember the situation. My father was in the forefront of the battle to get the Kentish agriculture industry back to producing the food that the nation needed. There was a shortage of machinery and crop storage. More importantly, there was a shortage of people with the skills to carry out the job. At least at that time the land was still available. The land had been allowed to turn into grazing. I remember a cousin of mine who farmed his 2,000 or 3,000 acres by buying a pony and ranching the land. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to the importance of the land.
If we have an agricultural recession today we face a new threat of the irreversible loss of agricultural land, which is one of the nation's most valuable assets. We have superb agricultural land, some of the best in the world. Today, unlike the situation in the 1930s, the general economy is booming. There are many competing demands for land. And land lost to housing, roads, industry and theme parks to mention but a few, is land lost to food production forever.
At this point I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel; I do not believe that this country will never need food produced at home again. That is what was thought in the 1920s and 1930s. The Americans and the Canadians were "mining" the Prairies for cheap
1126
wheat, but we did not know it at that time. We thought Hitler was a reasonably nice guy; we did not realise what was coming. We are burying our head in the sand if we think that the world will never again need the food produced in this country.
We may not have a world war; we can never foresee what will happen. But I can perhaps give one statistic which may suggest the reality of the possibility that the production of our agricultural land may one day again become crucial. In October last year the world's population reached 6 billion. It has doubled since 1960. It could easily double again in the next 40 years; that is, another 6 billion mouths to feed in the world. Over I billion today are between the ages of 15 and 24: that is, just reaching the peak child-bearing years.
The potential consequences of population growth are staggering. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, the Rector of Imperial College—who unfortunately cannot be in his place today because he is abroad—said in 1998:
"As world population doubles yet again demands for national resources, energy, food and water will lead to environmental pressures on a scale that is hard to imagine".
Some noble Lords may say there is potential for technological improvement. But is it reasonable to say that this country will never again need its agricultural land? I urge the Government to consider carefully before they put us and our
children at risk in the future. What is the Government's—I ask the same question of the Opposition—long-term policy for the future for good agricultural land in this country? What steps do they plan to take in the event of a recession to secure this unique and irreplaceable asset for future generations?
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for securing this most important debate. I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, and as president of the Staffordshire and Birmingham Agricultural Society, which has a wonderful show at the end of May this year. It is our 200th anniversary and I hope that your Lordships will attend in large numbers.
As one who cares deeply about the countryside and its general well-being, it saddens me to witness the steady decline of agriculture. I believe that agriculture is in deep depression at the moment. It is an industry which is experiencing a depression which many believe to be as bad or perhaps even worse than the great depression of the 1930s when I remember my father telling me that he paid tenant farmers 30 shillings an acre just to keep the land going.
It is unprecedented to see every sector of agriculture and horticulture in such steep decline. It is unprecedented to witness month by month reports of rising numbers of farmers leaving the land; of young people deciding not to follow their parents into the industry; of divorces; of suicides; and we have not yet seen the peak of this tragedy.
The recent Cabinet Office report paints a far different picture of rural affairs. Its authors tell us that whilst agriculture is experiencing difficult times, those

1127
of us who live in the countryside benefit from longer, healthier lives, in general pretty good services and a better general well-being, both mental and physical. That is pretty good. So everything in the garden is nice and rosy according to the Prime Minister's advisers, most of whom I guess could not tell a field of spring barley from winter wheat, apart from the fact that sometimes it is green, except on my farm where it is usually yellow.
Tell that to the farmer's wife who has just found her husband hanging from a beam in the barn because he could not face the future. Tell that to a farm worker who has just lost his job. Explain that to the stockman who has built up a prime pedigree herd over the course of his lifetime, only to see it destroyed for compensation a fraction of its true value. Tell that to the agricultural engineer who has been forced to close his business. The list of tragedies is endless, and even worse in the hills and the less-favoured areas.
I believe that the report paints an inaccurate picture of rural well-being. It states that, in general, levels of unemployment are lower in rural areas than in urban areas. But what it fails to point out are the vast numbers of people who use country villages as dormitories. Their numbers distort the true picture. Many villages are ghost towns during the week except for the evenings, and yet the inhabitants do not use the village shop, if indeed one exists any longer; they are generally multi-vehicle families who travel to supermarkets. Those of us who live and work in rural areas know full well the true picture. It is all very well for the No. 10 spinmasters to gloss over the fact. What they would wish us to believe is a gross distortion of the true situation.
I should like to touch briefly on the pig industry, for it is suffering pain far worse than the other sectors of agriculture. The industry is in freefall. What is needed is a level playing field. The factors which have hit the industry are many and varied; the strength of sterling; the BSE crisis; welfare issues and requirements which our EU colleagues are not restricted by; unfair treatment by supermarkets and also a glut of pigmeat throughout Europe. All those are villains in the scheme of things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, kindly replied to a number of Written Questions which I tabled recently, and I am grateful for her responses. The recent letter from John Godfrey, chairman of the National Pig Association, tells me,
"We now have the Prime Minister's commitment to help".
But I wonder whether that sentiment is a little premature. I ask the Minister in her wind-up to clarify just what plans for assistance for the pig industry the Prime Minister might have in mind.
I suggest to the noble Baroness that many of the current problems stem from cheap imported pigmeat from our EU partners, where their welfare standards are woefully below those practised in this country. It seems ridiculous to me that pig farmers in this country must pay for the disposal of pig offal, even though dedicated pig abattoirs sell processed pig offal to EU
1128
countries, only for it to be included in pig rations, and the finished product is then exported back to this country. Surely that flies in the face of all the standards and restrictions which have been placed on UK farmers. The result is a product which costs less to produce by our EU neighbours, making our pig industry completely uncompetitive.
Finally, honest labelling: I understand that imported pigs are processed in this country and many of the products are then labelled as British. That cannot be right when such products are often produced in systems which practise welfare regimes of a far lower standard than those practised in this country. It is pulling the wool over the consumers' eyes.
We should be giving every possible encouragement to our farmers, who are the best farmers in the world. The demise of the agricultural industry in this country will have lasting and long-term effects both on the countryside and on the balance of payments. To take no positive action now will reap a sad and expensive harvest in 10 years' time. That would be short-sighted in the extreme.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to talk briefly about the most beautiful of all the regions; that is, the West Country.
Agriculture matters more to the economy of the south-west where we live and farm than any other region. At over £1 billion, the value of agriculture output contributes 2.5 per cent of regional GDP—twice the average for other English regions—while the industry employs some 70,000 people, which is 2.3 per cent of regional employment; again, the highest for any English region. However, in the more rural parts of the region such as north Cornwall, west Devon and Exmoor, the significance of agriculture to the rural economy is even greater. For example, in rural Devon and Exmoor, 14.4 per cent of the workforce is employed in agriculture, which is three times the EU average.
On his recent visit to the south-west, the Prime Minister acknowledged what he called "pockets of deprivation" in the rural economy—and they certainly exist. On market days in towns like Holsworthy, Launceston and South Molton, where we live, so many businesses depend on the surrounding farms that you can almost smell the depression in the air.
But there is also an undercurrent of deprivation which runs through the rural economy throughout the region. This is concentrated among the indigenous country people—those who not only live in the countryside but earn their living there. This is where the effects of the crisis in agriculture have been felt most severely.
If all country people are to share in rural prosperity, which appears to be the Prime Minister's objective, it has to mean that resources must be concentrated, whether for jobs, housing, services or economic

1129
development. Those resources need to be concentrated on those people who make up that undercurrent of deprivation. Very many of them are in farming.
That is why assistance for agriculture, both short-term and long-term, is so important. It is not only a question of keeping farmers going so that they can continue to act as rather badly paid landscape gardeners. In the more rural areas especially, farming is still the mainspring of the rural economy, with at least one job off the farm for every job on the farm. On that basis, almost 30 per cent of the jobs in my part of north Devon depend on agriculture. And bear in mind that many of the other 70 per cent are people who may live in the countryside but who work in a town or city and who are really part of the urban economy. So in terms of the genuine rural economy, farming becomes even more dominant.
The Prime Minister acknowledged the seriousness of the crisis in farming and conceded that the countryside without agriculture would be a contradiction in terms. Yet that is precisely what we now face. Farming incomes have fallen by 70 per cent over the past two years. Last year the average hill farmer had a net income, according to the Government's own figures, of only £4,500 as a reward for his own and his wife's labours. Assuming, conservatively, that they both work a 60-hour week, that gives them an hourly rate of pay of 72p. Just imagine if one's own net income had fallen by 70 per cent over the past two years. That is not a pretty thought, but that is the reality of farming as it exists at the moment. Of course we need a long-term plan for the recovery and regeneration of our agriculture, but a long-term plan is a fat lot of good if you cannot get through the short term. That is where the Government must help, without further delay.
I make no apology whatsoever for swiftly repeating three important points. First, the Government must apply for the full amount of the agrimonetary compensation which is
available from the EU and match it in full so as to offset some of the huge damage inflicted by the strength of the pound. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who introduced this most important debate and for which I thank him, said, in the early 1990s when German and French currencies were very strong, those countries took full advantage of the compensation available from Brussels. Secondly, the Government must lift that awful burden of the offal tax on the pig farmers. Thirdly, they must implement the key recommendations of the red-tape review.
This will not be enough to transform the agricultural economy, but it might make that vital difference between survival and extinction for many farm businesses, and it would send a signal to the countryside that this is a Government who deal in actions as well as words.
I have to say this, although so many other noble Lords have already said it. Without short-term aid to tide over farming and to inspire confidence in the future, the damage to the rural economy and to our rural culture from what would amount to agricultural meltdown could be irreversible.
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend, who has again done us all a great service by putting down this debate to remind Her Majesty's Government of the very existence of farmers who, as we have heard from many noble Lords, are different. I believe that the Minister accepts that because she is sensitive to the needs of rural areas. It was also cheering for farmers in the south west to see the Prime Minister briefly come out and appear to accept their point of view. But it has to be accepted that the culture from which most Ministers and policy-makers come is mainly urban. For many MPs of all parties, farmers are simply another demanding section of society, grazing pigs in Parliament Square. They do not recognise that farmers make up the basics of our society, especially in the south west.
Surely the government must give the taxpayers, both urban and rural, much more vision of what they are aiming for in five years' time. This Government have the luxury of at least thinking that they can look forward to that period of time. But they must not waste that time. They must show that on a number of fronts they are determined to ensure that our farmers are valued and given a framework for the future. Fortunately. there are rural MPs, like David Drew, for example, who are deeply concerned about wider questions such as the food chain and the neglect of the rural economy as a whole. The Government will have to satisfy them.
We have already heard of a number of ways in which the Government could provide the confidence that is needed. The first is, of course, the green pound, mentioned principally by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton. But here is a typical example of Euro-bounty: in November you will lose 13 per cent on your already agreed arable area payment, but you will get a cheque some time in February to make up the difference. Why should the farmer subsidise the European Union in the interim period? We all hope that the Government will meet the April Fool's Day deadline.
Secondly, unnecessary burdens should be removed from the livestock industry, be they legal, tax, or administrative. The fate of 17 per cent of small abattoirs should be enough to prove that. There are still things that must be done in the wake of BSE to reduce the absurd cost of the Meat Hygiene Service. I have heard of a case in Sussex where five hygiene inspectors were needed to oversee three slaughtermen.
Can the Minister say anything about the future of the OTMS scheme and the 560 kilo weight limit, which is literally pushing more and more livestock farmers in the south west towards insolvency because of the fall in the value of their assets? This is important in that region, which has a high proportion of cattle, and is a particular problem in Dorset, where there is a greater density of dairy cows than almost anywhere else. An increase in compensation from 50p to, say, 60p or 65p per kilo would substantially improve the value of cows and hence the livelihood of dairy farmers at this critical

1131
time, who do not even live in so-called "designated hill areas" although they do believe that they live in the hills.
Thirdly, the future direction of environmental support should be spelled out. The Government are already doing this and I welcome this year's doubling of the countryside stewardship schemes with their planned fourfold increase from £29 million to £126 million over the next seven years. This also gives some indication of where the Government want to go with Agenda 2000. That is to be welcomed.
Again, the Government have listened to concerns about organic support. When speaking to one or two farming friends, I had the impression that the organic movement will attract many more mainstream farmers if it can demonstrate more integrity and less emotion. From the political point of view, the organic movement is on to a winner. It neatly combines much of the urban vision of the countryside as a wholesome place where rosy-cheeked folk produce healthy apples and sell cheese in farmers' markets on the one side, and the rural necessities of finding an alternative income, adding value and improving the landscape through such schemes as countryside stewardship on the other. Who could quarrel with that?
However, there is still a suspicion that more standards inevitably lead to higher prices and fewer farmers in the market. Look at what has happened to milk, which both governments have left in the lurch. In the meantime, food imports—as others have said—do not seem to be subjected to the same criteria.
By their nature, traditional farmers cannot afford to take risks. That is why they have survived for so long. I believe that they will gradually respond to the organic movement. One-quarter of all organic farms are already in the south west and in west Dorset we have plenty of examples of good practice and success. That is only to be welcomed. However, most farmers do not have the confidence to switch to new ideas. There is not enough support for start-up and retirement schemes to help families through the transition. The French know a great deal more about this. The result is that many farmers who are young enough have gone part time or into other businesses altogether. Will the Government do anything for young or retiring farmers under the specific heading of modulation?
My noble friend Lord Palmer did not mention bananas today, but I know that both he and others are concerned about protection for efficient small producers, wherever they live. It is the vulnerable producers around the world who should always be the focus of support. I am sure that the Minister will say that she and her colleagues are not giving up the attempt to look forward, push the CAP reforms through ahead of enlargement and give our farmers a better idea of what they can expect in the next generation.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I know that this House is particularly grateful to the noble
1132
Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this debate on the economics of agriculture. Many noble Lords have commented on the serious state of the industry and on the economic impact of various aspects of agriculture. I shall not repeat those comments as I find myself at the end of the speakers' list. However, I hope that the seriousness of the situation will be carried to the general public. That applies especially to the splendid article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph recently by the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, on pigs and pig farming, which read very well indeed. I shall concentrate on some of the contiguous issues rather than on some of the economic aspects.
Agricultural land in the United Kingdom consists of 18.5 million hectares, of which 60 per cent is grass or rough grazing; in other words, about 11 million hectares. But those 11 million hectares make up what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, called "this green and pleasant land" in which we live. It is the farmer, the grazier, the livestock producer who keeps it green and pleasant. Drive him out of business, and we will lose the guardians of our countryside.
While all sectors of farming are under extreme pressure, some, such as dairying and pig and sheep farming are especially hard hit. Of course, dairy farming is a high technology area, depending on heavy capital investment and very great skill. It is now uneconomic to produce milk several pence per litre below the cost of production. Many dairy farmers are going out of business, selling valuable pedigree dairy stock that they have bred for years and having invested capital in buildings, computers and health programmes. Once gone, I do not think they will ever return to the dairy industry. What will happen then to the buildings and, in particular, to the pastures on which they graze their cattle and which they use for making silage?
Pig farming is another intensive agricultural enterprise and one which is competing against cheaper imports from Denmark, Holland and Ireland—countries which are unencumbered by the high standards of welfare that we demand in this country. The ban on the use of meat and bone meal, for example, as a result of the BSE crisis has added to the problem. Moreover, there is the high value of the pound. Here, too, losses are of the order of £4 million per week and bankruptcy, unemployment, family crises and suicides have followed as a result while at the same time we import pig meat to our supermarkets and feed our forces on imported pig meat.
Sheep farming is another saga of the depressing situation of livestock production. This applies particularly to the marginal farmers. Sheep production is the only realistic form of production in the marginal areas. I was privileged to be in Powys on Monday this week and heard about the full economic impact of the present crisis. That has been detailed by other noble Lords, but there is another aspect; namely, that the sons and daughters of these farmers are unwilling to continue the custom of following their parents into farming. It is not economic. The life is too harsh, and too heavy demands are placed on such farmers by various regulations.

1133
Farms are sold or tenants give up their farms. Houses become country retreats for the urban dwellers and marginal land is particularly difficult to keep in productive shape. Neglect marginal land and we will go back to bracken and gorse and, occasionally, discarded bedsteads. The major criticism of sheep farmers in Wales is not that they want hand-outs. What they want is a level playing field on which they can compete. Indeed, I believe that they can compete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, mentioned the European Union regulation which would prohibit the use of feed additives such as minerals and vitamins unless they were incorporated into feed. That would make it impossible to administer these essential dietary components to animals in need of them. The estimated cost of the regulation, which has been on the books since 1970, would be of the order of £200 million. In addition, ill health and poor welfare might result.
Finally, perhaps I may stress that the British livestock farmer has not lost the ability to be a good husbandman—one who is cognisant of animal welfare and can farm at a profit. Given a level playing field, he can easily compete with any farmer anywhere in the European Union or in the world.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on initiating this debate. As I am sure we would all expect of the noble Lord, his speech was true and realistic. There was no word of exaggeration in it; indeed, noble Lords may feel that it is remarkable that an opening speech in a debate of this kind should have such a consistent echo through all the speeches that followed.
I also have an interest to declare, though not as a farmer. As far as farming and gardening go, I am an enthusiastic spectator. My interest is as a non-executive director of a plc that has feed mills and supplies feed, seed and general supplies to the agriculture industry throughout the whole of Wales and the Marches on a substantial scale. That interest gives me a very singular, bird's-eye view of what is going on in the industry. Every month we see the management accounts in which we note the increasing level of debt of farmers. We see the number of farms just going out of business; and, above all, we see how many small businesses in the agricultural supply industry are going out of business. Indeed, we are often picking up the pieces.
We can also look at the share prices in the feed sector which are dropping like stones at present. Moreover, as in our company, we can see that economies have to be made by the reduction of jobs—jobs that were part of the local picture for people living in rural areas who knew that they could not always rely merely upon the farm.
I have another non-pecuniary interest to declare that, frankly, it would have been risible to refer to in an agriculture debate a few years ago; namely, my role as patron of the National Depression Campaign. I took on that role as the father of a severely depressed daughter. However, in the years in which I have been
1134
doing it, depression among farmers has become a very major issue in that work. Those who say that farmers commit suicide because they are too ashamed to go to their doctor or consult a counsellor are wrong. These days, farmers are prepared to go and see counsellors and doctors. They are committing suicide because, even after they have been through that process, they simply cannot cope with the financial debt that faces them, the consequence that that is likely to have for their families and the ruination of centuries of family tradition.
One speaker referred earlier to the pride that owners have in the land. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to the pride of ownership. That is very true. It is part of the rural tradition. Farmers have not had a return on their capital for years; they stopped expecting a realistic return on their capital decades ago. It has certainly not been a realistic aspiration during all the time that I have been involved in political life. But, as one noble Lord said earlier, what they have lost now is a return on their labour.
I give your Lordships one example. I have in mind a very close friend of mine. As he lives and farms in Montgomeryshire—Trefaldwyn—I shall eponymously call him Maldwyn. He is a cowman, one of the best cowmen in Wales. He has a county council smallholding which he acquired after years of working for other people. His wife has a job as a milk recordist. They have 40 in their milking herd. Their profit in 1998 was £12,000—that is from the activity of both of them—which they regarded as a reasonable living, although I dare say Maldwyn and his wife could have earned twice as much elsewhere.
In 1999 they had a profit of £4,900, but Maldwyn's wife earned more than £4,900 in the year 1999 as a milk recordist. Therefore, the farm made a loss. In 2000 they expect a loss even though she is still working as a milk recordist. I have milked at that farm in the early morning; you could eat off the farmyard. Maldwyn is a real yeoman farmer. Their small farm now runs at such a substantial loss that there is not the remotest hope of his son, who might well have followed him in the industry, remaining in the industry at all. His son, inevitably, works away.
As a tenant farmer, what does Maldwyn have? He does not have the farm; he has his livestock. Before BSE his dairy cows were worth in round figures about £1,000 each. Today they are worth about £450 each. Mr Micawber would tell us the result of such a situation for a middle-aged farmer who is dependent, in part at least, on borrowed money. What has happened to his calves? In 1996 he obtained about £110 per calf, under the calf slaughter scheme which was then in operation. By July 1999, when the scheme ended, the price had gone down from £110 a calf to £38 a calf. Today he gives the calves away because there happens to be a hunt nearby which can use the calves' carcasses to feed the hounds. Even that option may not be available to him much longer. That is an issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and I share strong feelings.

1135
The problem has been clearly stated in terms of what is happening on the farms, but what is happening in the community? From 1983 to 1997 I represented Montgomeryshire in another place. That is part of rural Powys which was mentioned earlier. When I first became a Member of Parliament farmers used to complain to me frequently at my constituency surgeries. However, their complaints were as likely to be about each other as about the government, regulations or government policy. My successor, Mr Opik, the current Member for the same constituency, tells me that things are different now. Indeed, they had started to become different at various times before 1997.
Montgomeryshire has the largest number of farmers of any parliamentary constituency in the country. It has the largest number of farming union members, albeit they are divided between two unions, of any parliamentary constituency in the country. It has the largest young farmers' club membership—that is a dynamic organisation trying to create a future for young farmers—of any parliamentary constituency in the country.
The issues that we are discussing today have been discussed and researched time and time again. It is a pleasure to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford taking part in this debate. In the mid-1980s his diocese produced an excellent report on rural life and the future of agricultural communities. Incidentally, part of his diocese covers south Montgomeryshire and therefore I was well aware of the matters mentioned in the report. Everything that report predicted has come to pass. Almost nothing that report prescribed has been put into effect. The result has been—we are not completely surprised at the decline of rural areas—that those living in rural communities face what has rightly been described as a real crisis and a real agricultural recession.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, referred to the effect on
communities of this kind of recession. It was brought home to me by a four-word slogan I saw some time ago in rural mid-Wales: "No sheep, no people". That is true. We hear much about diversification. I know dozens of farmers who have tried to diversify. Virtually everyone who could do that has done it. However, even people in rural mid-Wales will not buy love spoons from each other. They will not eat breakfast and sleep in each others' beds even in rural Wales. I am afraid that for those who live on the periphery of this country it is inevitable that either we have a derelict countryside as a result of rural recession or we have a supported countryside, which will save it from rural recession.
I believe that Wales, Ireland and Scotland have, historically, faced the most serious depopulation of any area in western Europe. They face the risk once again that all their young people will be forced to leave to obtain what may well prove to be temporary ".com" careers before they can return to mid-Wales to retire. The elderly population of areas such as those which have been spoken of with great knowledge in this debate has risen year upon year. When I became a
1136
Member of Parliament in 1983 the average age of a farmer was 51. When I ceased to be an MP in 1997–14 years later—the average age of a farmer was 65. It had risen by one year for each one of those 14 years. That is clear evidence of what has happened to the industry.
Measures can be taken. Short-term measures are required. We hope that we shall hear the Minister tell us that the agrimoney compensation will be given for the reasons which have been clearly given by the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Hardy, by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others. We also need to hear the Government give a commitment that in areas such as Wales with regional development agencies we shall cease to have the ludicrous situation which has appertained ever since the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales were formed; namely, that those agencies were not allowed to dip their fingers into agriculture. They were not allowed to try to create the circumstances in which Wales's biggest industry, agriculture, could develop. Their brief was to bring in other industries, alternatives to agriculture. That completely unrealistic separation of roles should cease.
We hope to hear from the Government that the reformed TECs will have a role to ensure that there will be a real concentration on finding alternative training and employment for people who have been employed in agriculture. We on these Benches say to the Minister, in a sentence, that farming is in catastrophe. We ask the Government, please, to use their power and money to do something about it.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has introduced this debate at an opportune moment. He referred to the potential of non-food crops, which we debated in this House last Friday. They have a role and a future, but although this is welcome, they still form only a comparatively small part of the overall farming scenario.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, clearly emphasised the continuing crisis that faces farmers today. However the Government try to portray life in rural areas, they cannot but accept that many farmers and their families face problems of unacceptable proportions. I declare my family farming interest.
As other noble Lords have said, farm incomes have plummeted. The NFU mentions an average of £ 16,250 for 1997–98, of which £5,000 is pensions, benefits and off-farm earnings. The figures for 1998–99 have halved to an average income of £8,000. I believe that they are due to halve again. Today one of my noble friends mentioned a farmer's income of 72p an hour. Where is the minimum wage there? For many there is little farm income, and for some, none.
On Wednesday of last week I attended a meeting of the Church Synod, where the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford moved a debate which recognised the current crisis in agriculture and how that was reflected in the wider rural community. Speaker after

1137
speaker spoke from personal experience. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who is not in his seat, spoke of the bleakness of his diocese; of farming at an all-time low; of Sellafield under threat; of the shipbuilding industry under pressure. Where will alternative jobs come from if employment in agriculture continues to shrink? Many noble Lords have given similar examples today.
While the Church Synod was meeting at Church House, the pig farmers had their meeting in Westminster—not across in Parliament Square—to raise the issue of their demise with parliamentarians. I was somewhat anxious when I understood that no one from the Government was able to attend. Why? At a time such as this that was very unfortunate. However, like other noble Lords, I am pleased to have heard today that the Prime Minister will be meeting leaders of the industry. One hopes that the issue of its demise will at least be discussed and matters moved forward.
We were asked what we would do. What should the Government do? They can do several things. They can act immediately to implement all the recommendations of the three reports which have just been completed—Looking into Red Tape, IACS Payments and the Future of the Intervention Board. This would be a welcome move and would ease many burdens on farmers.
The Government can look at all proposed legislation and calculate the implementation costs for our farmers. The Prime Minister has announced that there will be no pesticide tax at present. We welcome that. But when the government moratorium ends, IPPC charges will impose extra costs on our pig and poultry producing farmers. This charge does not have to come into force across the EU until 2007.
Will the Government think again about applying the climate change levy, which will obviously have great implications for our fruit and vegetable growers? Are other countries imposing such charges on their horticulture businesses? There is also the question of battery hen cages and the feedstuff regulations, to which my noble friends have referred. Our farmers follow the highest standards in animal welfare. If these same high standards are not adopted simultaneously by all countries, our farmers will become uncompetitive and will surely be forced out of business.
Moreover, often our Government seek to impose new standards in advance of agreed EU implementation dates. I queried the IPPC charges with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. In his reply he said:
"Existing installations will be phased into the IPPC on a sectoral basis until 2007"—
I looked again and I did not believe what I was reading—
"in order to spread the workload of the regulators".
Is that right? Is that fair?
I turn now to the effect that the farming crisis is having on families. Many noble Lords have mentioned this. The burden is carried by the whole family and very often especially by the farmer's wife. Many of these resourceful ladies have taken on extra jobs,
1138
created value-added businesses and, as other noble Lords have said, some have taken on outside work. The strain on the whole family is enormous. This is evidenced by the work of the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute which between 1994 and 1997 helped some 15 working farmers each year. Since April 1998, when the RABI launched an emergency appeal, it has helped some 231 farming families—an alarming increase.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, when a farming job goes it affects not only the family farm. Once a family
farming job is lost, 15 allied jobs go with it. It affects suppliers, vets, agricultural businesses, services and processors. Some 18,000 farmers—indeed, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said the figure was 22,000—left the industry last year. What are the costs in benefits, in welfare payments, in retraining? What are the costs of trying to service bank loans when the value of the stock is plummeting?
We posed these questions to the Government but we were given the standard answer that such statistical details are not available. As the debate is about the economics of agriculture, perhaps the Minister will have some information for us today. If not, perhaps she can ensure that we receive further information later.
In human terms, the farming crisis cannot be overstated. I believe that there is a great future for our farming and horticulture industries, but to safeguard them the Government must have a clear, long-term strategy. I totally agree that if we do not have a short-term strategy soon, there will be no long-term farming needs anyway. But let us accept that the Government are putting their minds to addressing the short term and looking to the longer term. Many points have been made about this and I shall return to the matter later.
As has been echoed around the Chamber today, I believe that the industry faces five major problems: the whole question of tenant farmers; lack of succession; no retirement funds; still falling prices; and unfair overseas competition.
The 1995 Agricultural Tenancies Act has obviously freed up the market-place as the decline in the supply of tenanted land has been reversed in each of the past four years. Moreover, the figures from the Central Association of Valuers show that 50 per cent of new tenancies for 1999 were for more than five years. This is most encouraging.
But the typical tenant farmer picture is far from upbeat. He and his wife are working horrendous hours to earn a sum that has halved and halved again in the past three years. His children do not want to follow him into farming because they see no future in it. The value of his livestock, his milk, his barley, his sheep, his savings, his pension is almost gone; he owns nothing—and the Government have refused a retirement package to enable him and his wife to get out with dignity.
However, there are other farmers who have been able to move forward—as, indeed, have some tenant farmers. They have pooled resources with their neighbours; they are sharing machinery; they are

1139
learning more about marketing; and they are adapting to the computer age. Even then, their products must compete with imported foods which do not match the UK animal welfare standards, hygiene standards and environmental standards. No matter how much we wrap the Union Jack around our products, the consumer still buys foreign goods because they are not clearly labelled. Many noble Lords have mentioned that point today. The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Selborne that the industry should have an independently led promotional group is a very good one.
In the time available it would be impossible for me to reflect on the many excellent contributions that have been made to the debate. I should, however, like to comment on a few of them. Honesty in labelling is very important. I, too, am very disappointed that the Government did not accept Stephen O'Brien's Private Member's Bill last Friday. The strong pound is crucial to the problem. As other noble Lords have said, the Government must apply for the agrimoney, and they must do so urgently. Several noble Lords mentioned the issue of GM trials. They must go ahead because we need know their results. Small abattoirs must be protected. The regulations which make trading difficult for them must be eased, otherwise we will lose our organic markets and niche markets. Questions concerning regulations and bureaucracy have echoed around the Chamber, one after the other. When is a subsidy not a subsidy? In Europe we call it a subsidy; in America they call it something else. It is high time that we agreed certain standards and a language in which we can understand each other. I, too, would encourage the MoD to buy British. We have the best; for goodness sake, let us buy it. Other countries would certainly do the same for their farming industry.
At the other end of the scale, new people—young farmers—are coming into the industry. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned this. They are there, they are enthusiastic, they want to get to grips and to take an active part in farming. But they need to have direction and a long-term view.
To me, security of our basic food needs is essential. I welcome the environmental schemes that the Government are bringing forward, but the security of our basic food needs is something for which I would fight and try to secure.
I believe that there is a future for our farming industry. But the Government must take a much more robust stand to enable it to thrive. I welcome the announcement that the Prime Minister will be holding a meeting with those from the industry. But he has to stop consulting—and, yes, he has to start implementing clear, fair, helpful steps in a strategy aimed at long-term economic stability within this important industry.
8.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I join in the general congratulations to the noble Lord,
1140
Lord Palmer, for having pitched the terms and subject matter of the debate in a way that has provoked enormous interest, passion and a great deal of personal knowledge and experience. The remarkable self-discipline in regard to the length of speeches has made the pace of the debate for those listening to it very enjoyable and stimulating. I begin by congratulating everyone else who managed to keep so well within their time. The only point on which I would criticise the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is that he has given me what I fear is an impossible task in trying to respond to all the issues raised.
I say that in the awareness that his Motion deals with the economics of agriculture within the United Kingdom. We heard contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Laird, about the state of agriculture in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and others about interests in Scotland; and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke about issues relating to rural Wales.
It is important to recognise, as some speakers did, that we are a United Kingdom in terms of our relationships with the European Union, and therefore it is absolutely appropriate that we debate these issues here. Equally, we may need to take into account particular attributes of the industry in certain areas of the United Kingdom and look carefully at the relative interests. One such example is the BSE status of cattle in Northern Ireland.
It may be useful at this point to say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that legislation on hunting in Scotland will absolutely be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, as I am sure he understands from our long debates on devolution. However, I can reiterate the reassurance given earlier by the Prime Minister in terms of there being no threat whatsoever to shooting or fishing in this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may seek clarification on that point. As the Prime Minister is Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom, is the Minister saying that that guarantee applies to Scotland as well as England?
Baroness Hayman: No, my Lords, I think I was saying the exact opposite. The Prime Minister is, of course, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. As I understand the situation, the Scottish Parliament has legislative capacity over hunting issues in Scotland—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is present and will correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the regime in Scotland could be different from that in England. I can, therefore, give the noble Earl reassurances in regard to England, but decisions regarding the nature of any legislation on the matter in Scotland are for the Scottish Parliament.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister once more. When the Prime Minister made

1141
that important observation, which gave succour to many people, did he realise that he was actually excluding Scotland?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sufficiently "on message" to be able to tell the noble Earl what the Prime Minister realised or did not realise. He normally realises quite well what he is saying. I almost wish that I had not dealt with what I thought was a
simple issue raised by the noble Earl. If I spend too much time on specific issues I shall not get anywhere.
The debate has been well-informed. I was especially touched by the recognition on the part of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that there are difficult choices to be made; and that choices may need to be made in the balance between long-term and short-term measures to support agriculture. Public money cannot be used twice. There must always be priorities in terms of public spending. Most noble Lords have recognised that a great deal has been done in the short term.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that it is wrong to suggest that anyone has ever said that all is rosy, or has denied the state of the crisis in agriculture, or not recognised the very real, very personal consequences to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others drew our attention. There are, among all the statistics, personal and family tragedies, and none of us should ever deny that. The farming industry is in deep recession. That has never been denied; nor has there been any turning of our backs on measures to help in the short term.
As well as the £3½ billion that goes into the CAP year on year, I remind the House of the packages of aid that have come in since May 1997: £150 million in early 1998; £120 million in November 1998; £150 million in September 1999, including some of the areas raised during the debate; the deferral of charges for inspections in relation to specified risk material from cattle and sheep carcasses; the deferral of charges for cattle passports; the money into HLCAs; the marketing support of £1 million, which was increased in October 1999 by a further £5 million; the £10 million of extra money that has gone into organic farming, which means that since we came to power there is now three times the area in organic farming or conversion.
Concerns have been expressed about abattoirs—I am well aware of those—and the charging regime for the Meat Hygiene Service. However, we have frozen the hourly rate of MHS charges for this year, and have guaranteed that they will not rise next year more than the rate of inflation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly give way? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this industry. Will she make absolutely clear that it is just the hourly rates that have been frozen, not the number of hours? The number of hours is likely to increase in accordance with EU requirements.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that I did use the term "hourly rate". I was trying to be careful. The
1142
noble Countess is right; there are problems in dealing with and implementing the regulations. We did freeze at 1999 levels the levels of veterinary supervision in low through-put abattoirs, but that does not apply to all abattoirs.
As was mentioned in the debate, we have also seen the £1.6 billion that will go into the rural development regulation over seven years; £300 million pounds of matched funding to match the effects of modulation, allowing us to double the countryside stewardship schemes; and the other help that will be given for skills training and marketing. The issue of young farmers was raised on several occasions. Those are areas that may well be of great benefit to young farmers. There have been the three red tape reviews that we have undertaken, together with the NFU, and the acceptance of the vast majority of the recommendations and work that is ongoing in relation to those. Mention was made of the announcement about the agreement reached with the industry on the pesticides tax.
I list those matters not just to remind the House of the Government's action but that even against that background, we are having this debate. I make no apology to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—with whom I hesitate to cross swords at this time in the evening—for emphasising what he called the long-term stuff. The long-term stuff is enormously important in terms of the CAP. We heard a wide variety of views on solutions to problems if not an analysis of the problems themselves.
Some trenchant speeches have followed a line that was not totally parallel with everything else that was said. However, opposition to the present state of the CAP probably united the whole House on this occasion. MAFF and myself feel that it is important to change the emphasis within the CAP, with a policy shift that reduces agriculture's reliance on subsidies based on production and focuses on support for the public benefits that agriculture brings.
There is recognition of the unique quality of agriculture. It is invidious to talk about the suffering of individuals from losing their employment in industries where families have worked for generations. That can apply to a coal mining community or one that has been dependent on shipbuilding, and can be as painful as for an agricultural community. We should not leave any such communities unsupported at times of enormous change.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech to the National Farmers' Union that we recognise the interdependence of the environment, rural economy and countryside on the agricultural industry. We must make sure that the support given recognises that interdependence and supports the environmentally beneficial aspects of agriculture, with schemes that assist the role of stewardship of the countryside rather than perverse incentives.
The English rural development plan, in which we intend to invest £1.6 billion over seven years, sets out how we will deliver on that and other policy objectives,

1143
such as the encouragement of restructuring for the long term. As part of that, we are promoting non-food crops—an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred and which has been debated at length in your Lordships' House. We share the noble Lord's desire to see effective use made of such crops. That fledgling industry, which is one we need to encourage, is an example of diversification. Although I accept that diversification is not available to everybody, some pockets of agriculture that are not suffering are those where people have successfully diversified and found a niche market.
My reading of the PIU report was not that rural economies and communities are rosey and blooming, and that everything is perfect there in a way that is not true of urban economies. The report pointed out the complexity of the issues. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, expressed his concerns about depopulation in rural Wales. I do not have figures for the Principality, but the population of rural England has risen 24 per cent—four times the rate of growth for the whole country. The picture is more complex than simply everyone in the countryside suffering when agriculture has a difficult time. Different parts of the countryside have different problems. There are terrible pockets of deprivation, but there are also areas where things are not so bad. My noble friend Lord Hardy referred to issues that go wider than agriculture, such as rural transport and crime, which are important for the economic welfare of people living and working in the countryside.
As to what can be done in the short term, most of the debate centred on agrimonetary compensation. I was asked to give the Government's position, but I am unable to answer tonight. The Government are still considering whether to apply for the next tranche of agrimonetary compensation. That decision will have to be made soon.
Agrimonetary compensation is not free. It does not even require simply matched funding—to which the right reverend Prelate referred. Where compensation is compulsory because of the Fontainebleau agreement, the UK pays 71p for every £1 of agrimonetary compensation. If compensation is optional, 50 per cent is paid for by the UK and 50 per cent from EU funds, so it costs the Treasury—or the British taxpayer, as my noble friend Baroness Young pointed out—85p in every £1. That level of financing requires examination of the value for money that the industry overall would enjoy and relative priorities. Something that always concerns me and which we must consider carefully is the areas that would benefit from agrimonetary compensation. It would not benefit the whole industry.
Almost as much time has been spent talking about pigs as agrimonetary compensation. The pig regime, like the poultry regime in Europe, is extremely light and there would be no benefit. Choices may have to be made in terms of spending priorities.
Earl Peel: Does the Minister agree that the formula devised under the Fontainebleau agreement has
1144
nothing to do with the farming industry or with the farmer? The compensatory schemes were designed specifically to help farmers when the euro was weak. Most noble Lords have said that we have here a level playing field, and this is something which is due to farmers. Other European countries have claimed it when their currencies have been strong, and it is now incumbent on this Government to do so. I am sure that the noble Baroness can agree with that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the argument that the noble Earl makes. We have paid substantial sums of agrimonetary compensation—a great deal more than was paid during the time of the previous government. We shall not go into that. While I understand the point that the noble Earl raises, in the end we must look at the best potential use of public money for the agricultural industry. That is neither a yes nor a no; it merely explains the framework within which we must operate agrimonetary compensation.
Many noble Lords have expressed concern about the burden of regulation on farmers. I have no wish to be part of a department that gold-plates EU regulations or produces additional burdens on farmers. I am aware that there are noble Lords who do not wish to be part of the CAP—I look straight across to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke—the implication being that the UK should not be part of the European Union at all. That is a debate for another time and place. That is not my view. However, as long as we are members of the EU we have a responsibility towards it and there are negotiations to be had. We must deal with the situation, not just pretend that the European Union and EU legislation do not exist. I am afraid that that is the problem with the O'Brien Bill which is concerned with country-of-origin labelling.
I reassure noble Lords that those elements of the red tape reviews that require work within Europe, particularly in Brussels, are being actively pursued. My right honourable friend had a meeting with Commissioner Byrne yesterday. We hope to make progress on the issue of meat hygiene regulations and the move to a risk-based approach. Equally, a pilot project to introduce the electronic communication of IACS forms is already in place, with the aim of making it available to everyone in 2001. We are also working on new IT systems to allow all subsidy claims to be submitted to MAFF electronically by 2002.
I referred to country-of-origin food labelling. Reference has also been made to labelling in relation to welfare standards. There has been support for the UK not to retreat from its high standards of animal welfare. The response to other countries with lower standards is not to try to impose illegal bans but twofold. First, we have undertaken consultation on rigorous new rules concerned with misleading advertising about country of origin so that we can take action to ensure that consumers are not deceived, particularly by pig meat products that are described as having been produced in Britain but have simply been sliced or cured here. There is very specific new guidance on that matter. I believe that the way

1145
forward—the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, touched on this matter—is to market positively rather than negatively on quality.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. There is no question of our not supporting high standards of animal welfare. The difficulty is that if other countries are able to produce to lower standards our farmers are put under extreme pressure. They cannot be competitive and so go out of business. I believe that that point has been echoed throughout the House today. I hope that the Minister grasps that nettle. We certainly believe that these standards should be maintained. However, the problem goes beyond the EU. Reference was made earlier to the global market. While we may be able to do something within the EU, global competition is another matter.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. It is for that reason that we must work within the European Union and the World Trade Organisation in order to make animal welfare part of EU and WTO thinking. We can ensure that we do not allow imports that fall below EU standards of animal welfare, but we cannot voluntarily impose on importers additional standards of animal welfare. The answer lies with consumers. Consumers who as concerned citizens want high levels of animal welfare must follow through their thought processes when they purchase food. It is very important that we encourage the kind of marketing that allows people to do exactly that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may very boringly interrupt the noble Baroness again. Do I understand from what the noble Baroness says that we must label produce perfectly clearly so that everyone knows what has gone into it, but that it is also perfectly all right to import into this country food produced to lower standards provided it is labelled as such? If so, I should have thought that the home producer would be enormously prejudiced.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl is never boring. Animal welfare and production standards apply at EU level. We must check that we do not import meat and poultry that is produced to lower standards. What we cannot do is impose our own voluntary additional standards as a barrier to trade, and for that reason the marketing issues are important. I was very interested in the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about independent kite-marking. Together with the NFU, we are working on a kite-marking system to see how in this country we can market the additional benefits in terms of welfare and hygiene standards. But that would be done as a joint NFU/government initiative. I am interested in his view that the scheme will not be believed unless it is completely independent.
The important issue of regional marketing was raised. It is interesting that supermarket customer focus groups tell the supermarkets that regional promotions on food are more effective than national promotions. That is an important lesson.
1146
I am concerned about time, so perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the other issues. Feed additives—an animal welfare issue—was a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. I was talking about it with representatives of the horse industry today. I know that they are concerned. We had just had a consultation on it. The strength of feeling and the concerns about the effect of the proposals have been expressed clearly. They have given us a great deal of negotiating ammunition to take the issue forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked about high quality
agricultural land. The PIU report dealt with those issues. It was not government policy but a report to government on which views were sought and some 120 responses have been received. It suggested that the protection of high-grade agricultural land is an outdated barrier to development and that more regard should be paid to protect land of higher environmental value by developing a new framework for identifying the full range of environmental assets. The report illustrates clearly that the issues and the planning framework are complex and require careful and detailed consideration to ensure that we develop balanced solutions. We intend to build on the responses to the report in the rural White Paper which will be published later this year.
I shall read carefully the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on modulation and the rural development plan. Payments under the England rural development plan will normally go to farm businesses.
My noble friend Lord Hardy referred to access to the countryside. I hope that he has been reassured by the published Bill which makes clear that with greater access there will be greater responsibilities; and that only if people abide by sensible restrictions will they be able to benefit from the new right. The Government's access proposals are not a threat to landowners' and managers' livelihoods and will bring in an important new protection for wildlife.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, spoke about biodiversity. I assure him that MAFF is considering the Select Committee report, along with the DETR.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about OTMS payment rates. Rates and rules are set by the commission not the
Government. We have to consider whether there is any way within the confines of the present scheme—there are financial constraints in terms of the rates, the rules and the Bill—that some of the technical difficulties farmers are experiencing can be resolved.
Reference has been made to the possibility of an early retirement scheme for farmers and the difficulties of tenant farmers. It was one of the issues on which we consulted last year. The majority of the responses to those consultations demonstrated the belief that other rural development schemes had higher priority. It is difficult to frame a scheme for early retirement which meets the needs of those suffering most at present. It is equally difficult to frame a scheme which supports specifically young farmers. Some of the elements of skill training and marketing will be of help in particular to young farmers and young entrants.

1147
The right reverend Prelate spoke about the countryside stewardship scheme. He felt that it was too complicated for some small farmers. Some small farmers manage to benefit from it. However, it is a competitive scheme. Many applications from farmers of all sizes are turned down. I hope that the additional money for the scheme in the English rural development plan will help. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate could let me know of any specific difficulties and I shall look into them.
I was asked about the long-term strategy for agriculture. I spoke about looking for a sustainable future for the industry which recognises its particular contribution to the countryside, to the rural economy and to the rural environment.
Many noble Lords referred to the fact that the Prime Minister, in his speech at the NFU conference on 1st February, signalled his willingness to address the problems with the industry both in the short and long term. Today he announced that that meeting will take place on 30th March, and I should make it clear that it will go wider than the pig farming industry. It will encompass the whole of the United Kingdom and include agriculture Ministers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and food and farming industry leaders. It will be oriented towards action and agreeing a plan for the future of agriculture. I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, that that is as far as I can go tonight in spelling out those plans.
We have had an interesting debate that has recognised the short-term pressures and the need to look to the long term and to the future. Reference was made to the General Synod debate and its conclusions. I can do no better than share its conclusion of a deep commitment to the long-term cause of securing a sustainable rural economy in which agriculture continues to play a role of fundamental importance.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, when I saw the list of speakers for tonight's debate I knew that we were in for a first-class debate. However, it greatly exceeded my expectations. It was this House at its very, very best. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part so eloquently tonight.
I have to say that I slightly hoped for more encouraging signs from the noble Baroness, who, in my view, did a splendid job in taking up such a wide range of issues. I am sure that we all wait with baited breath for the announcement of agri-money compensation. I just hope that the noble Baroness is able to twist her right honourable friend's arm. And with that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cheques (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
9.16 p.m.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I beg to
1148
move that this Bill be now read a second time. I begin by reminding your Lordships that as chairman of a bank I have an interest to declare. But I could add that the Bill has the support of all the Scottish banks and, as far as I know, of all the non-Scottish banks which have to operate in Scotland. The Bill is designed to correct a longstanding and rather strange anomaly between the law in Scotland and in England and Wales. It is an inconvenience to customers, and also to bankers. I shall describe what happens at present.
When a cheque is presented in Scotland to a bank, if there are plenty of funds in the account of its owner there is no problem and it goes through in the normal way. However, as soon as the cheque is presented it operates as an assignment of the sum which is drawn in favour of the holder. That codifies a pre-existing principle of Scots common law.
As noble Lords will understand, that is all very fine when there are sufficient funds to meet the cheque. The problem arises when there are insufficient funds. In that case, the cheque, by its very existence, assigns the funds which are not available to be put aside. The bank is obliged by law to put aside that sum immediately, completely and irrevocably and not to make those funds available to the owner of the cheque in future. Therefore, from that moment the assets of the person writing the cheque are frozen, irrespective of any other circumstances.
The only way in which the position can be corrected at that point is if five conditions are met. The first is if the cheque is re-presented and met, because the drawer has sufficient funds. The second is if the holder returns the cheque to the drawer who can then demonstrate to the bank that the holder has relinquished his claim to the attached funds. The third is if the drawer can produce a written declaration from the holder that the claim has been relinquished. The fourth is that five years have expired and the fifth is that a judicial settlement is reached.
As noble Lords will be able to see, the situation places the provider of the cheque and the bank in an awkward position because the funds concerned are frozen. If, for example, a small company is involved, its business can be absolutely wrecked until all the conditions are met and the matter resolved.
The position in England and Wales is much more simple. If the drawer of a cheque has insufficient funds and the bank is not prepared to allow an overdraft, the cheque is simply returned to the payee. The payee must then deal with the debtor directly without involving the bank. Even if several cheques are presented simultaneously which, in aggregate, exceed the funds available, the bank is free to satisfy those cheques for which there are adequate funds and to return the rest. That situation occurs frequently. In other words, the present law outside Scotland is very flexible. The banker and the customer can arrange matters themselves and, it is hoped, no harm is done to the original writer of the cheque.
This matter has been under discussion for a long time. It was of major interest to the Jack Committee, which some years ago was asked to opine on these

1149
issues. That committee strongly advocated a change in the law. Therefore, in Clause 1 the Bill abolishes the funds attached rule for cheques. Subsection (1) abolishes the funds attached rule so far as it relates to cheques. Subsection (2) explains the funds attached rule by describing the rule in Scots common law: the presentation of a bill of exchange to the drawee operates as an assignation in favour of the holder of the bill of the funds for which it is drawn or, where the drawee holds insufficient funds, of the amount of those funds. Subsection (3) completes the picture by disapplying Section 53(2) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 in relation to cheques. Clause 2 contains supplementary provisions. I do not believe that I need go into those for your Lordships at this moment. Clause 3, of course, contains the Short Title.
I believe that this is a sensible and long overdue "putting right" of something that has caused quite a lot of inconvenience. I am informed that there are as many as 100,000 cases a year in which customers experience some form of inconvenience from the present anomaly. The Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers estimates that attachment of funds procedures cost their members as much as £225,000 a year. Therefore, if the Bill were passed, it would remove an inconvenience and save a great deal of money, not only for banks but for their customers. I very much hope that your Lordships will feel that it is a worthwhile measure. I beg to move.
9.24 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I listened with enormous interest to what my noble friend said. The Bill is obviously an attempt to help all concerned in the circumstances that he described. However, I am concerned about one matter from the point of view of the bank's customer. The excellent Explanatory Notes which the noble Viscount has provided with his Bill explain that, where several cheques are presented simultaneously and there are insufficient funds to satisfy them all, the bank in practice will choose which cheques it satisfies from the funds available. It could not satisfy them all if the customer did not have sufficient funds. Therefore, the bank would choose which cheques to honour.
The Explanatory Notes go on to say:
"This could be done in a way which would do the least damage to the interests of the customer of the bank".
When my noble friend replies to the debate, can he tell me how the bank will decide which cheques are satisfied and which are not, and whether the bank would consult the customer in making that decision. I should be very grateful if in due course my noble friend could answer that question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this short three-clause Bill must seem a long way from the considerable documentation that must have been necessary when my noble friend's bank took over the Nat West, but I suppose that my noble friend must come down to these lesser but still important matters.
1150
As my noble friend explained, this issue entirely affects Scotland. It is unusual for the Scottish Members of your Lordships' House to come to your Lordships' House and suggest that perhaps the law in England is better than the law as it applies in Scotland, but that is what we are doing this evening. I even have a letter from the Law Society of Scotland which confirms that the attachment rule as far as it
relates to cheques should be abolished and Scots law brought into line with that of the rest of the UK. As such a statement does not come often from the Law Society of Scotland, I thought it only right that I should acquaint your Lordships with it.
As my noble friend Lord Younger explained, this Bill seems a sensible, small measure which will get away from a very cumbersome procedure which I suspect not only causes problems for the banks but also causes problems for the customer and for the person who thought he was about to receive money by presenting the cheque.
I wish to raise only one issue. I understand the point concerning the case where there is one customer with a limited amount of money and suddenly four or five people turn up with cheques which come to more than the individual has in his bank account. Instead of the whole lot going away empty-handed, decisions are made about who will go away empty-handed and who will go away with the full amount. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked a rather pertinent question in relation to that.
My question is similar but it is easier to explain by using an example of only one cheque. Let us suppose for a moment that somebody has a cheque for £100 and when he turns up at the bank, he discovers that there is only £90 in the account. I often wonder why we do not pay the £90 and argue about the other £10. It seems rather unfair on the chap who should receive £100 that he goes away empty-handed, when he could perhaps go away with £90 of the £100. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me whether this measure will indirectly affect that particular circumstance.
Having said that, on this side of the House, we are perfectly content with this measure. It seems a perfectly sensible reform and will—on this very unique occasion by bringing the law in Scotland into line with the law in England—improve the position in Scotland.
9.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps a London born and bred Scot—half Scot at any rate—may be allowed to intervene in this matter. We are extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this Bill, which will allow banks in Scotland to drop antiquated procedures, make administrative costs savings, and offer a more streamlined service to customers.
As the noble Viscount made clear, it is a technical measure to correct an anomaly whose origins are lost in the mists of time, by which I really mean Scots common law. Of course, that is why it cannot be dealt with under deregulation powers. Deregulation powers

1151
to amend primary legislation are restricted to statute law and cannot affect common law, as this Bill must do.
It is 11 years now since the Jack report and the Scottish Office public consultations whose results were announced in 1993. That consultation showed that abolition of the funds-attached rule is the right way forward. Attachment of funds has no friends. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that Westminster is mindful of Scottish interests. The Government will not resist this measure.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance of the measure in that way. I am also grateful for the general welcome that it has received in your Lordships' House this evening.
I was asked two questions which I shall now try to deal with. First, my noble friend Lady Carnegy raised the question of how the bank would operate where cheques were presented and collectively they were more than the funds available to meet them. What happens is quite straightforward now south of the Border. The cheques in question would all be returned. In doing so, the bank would get in touch with the writer and say, "These cheques have been presented and they cannot be met because there is not enough money in your account". The bank would then ask how it was to be dealt with, whether cheques one and two but not three should be re-presented, or the other way around. In other words, there would be consultation, as my noble friend asked, in the best interests of the customer as to which of the cheques could be met. The remaining cheque or cheques which could not be met because there was still insufficient funds would remain a problem to be dealt with in the normal way by saying to the customer, "You have no funds to meet this cheque or cheques, therefore, you must consider what should be done".
That leads me to the second question which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised. He asked what would happen if a cheque for £100 is presented and it can be met except for £10. The answer is that the cheque would be returned to the bank of the writer of the cheque. It would say to the customer, "Your cheque has been presented but you do not have £100 to meet it, only £90". There would then be the option of discussing with the customer whether he or she wished not to present it at all or whether a new cheque should be presented for £90, which would be met, leaving a debt to the business colleague of £10. That would he a matter for discussion between the customer and his or her bank. That raises the need for the measure. It is that sensible dialogue which is prevented by the strange anomaly in the law which we are trying to remove. With that assurance, I very much hope that your Lordships will agree that this measure is worth taking. I therefore ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.CORRECTION
In col. 799 of the Daily Report for 6th March a question by Lord Lea of Crondall was wrongly attributed to Lord Elder.

  Sudan: Arms Transfers
  Sudan: Arms Transfers
  Austria and the EU
  Austria and the EU
  Turkey: HADEP Mayors
  Turkey: HADEP Mayors
  Turkey: Landmines
  Turkey: Landmines
  Turkey: PKK Statement
  Turkey: PKK Statement
  Turkey: Guclukonak Massacre
  Turkey: Guclukonak Massacre
  Kosovo: Administration
  Kosovo: Administration
  Kosovo: Trepca Mine
  Kosovo: Trepca Mine
  Kosovo: Issue of Travel Documents
  Kosovo: Issue of Travel Documents
  Torture Convention
  Torture Convention
  Police Pursuit Driver Training
  Police Pursuit Driver Training
  Prison Service Website
  Prison Service Website
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  M25 Murder Case Decision
  M25 Murder Case Decision
  Prison Service: New Regime Orders
  Prison Service: New Regime Orders
  Female Foreign Nationals in Prison for Drug Offences
  Female Foreign Nationals in Prison for Drug Offences
  Women Offenders: Suspended Sentences
  Women Offenders: Suspended Sentences
  Sentencing of Women
  Sentencing of Women
  Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
  Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Immigration Rules, Paragraph 320(18)
  Immigration Rules, Paragraph 320(18)
  Asylum Decisions in Europe
  Asylum Decisions in Europe
  Blantyre House Prison
  Blantyre House Prison
  Asylum Seekers from Council of Europe Member States
  Asylum Seekers from Council of Europe Member States
  Strategic Airlift Requirement
  Strategic Airlift Requirement
  General Pinochet's Arrest: Effect on Exports to Chile
  General Pinochet's Arrest: Effect on Exports to Chile
  FV430 Armoured Personnel Carriers
  FV430 Armoured Personnel Carriers
  IMPACT
  IMPACT
  Landrovers: MoD Use in UK
  Landrovers: MoD Use in UK
  Miners' Compensation for Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Miners' Compensation for Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Radiocommunications Agency: Issue of Telecom Licences
  Radiocommunications Agency: Issue of Telecom Licences
  Minority Ethnic Communities: Health Department Strategy
  Minority Ethnic Communities: Health Department Strategy
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Disability Living Allowance
  Disability Living Allowance
  Disability Benefits Underspend
  Disability Benefits Underspend
  Northern Ireland: Public Expenditure on Public Transport
  Northern Ireland: Public Expenditure on Public Transport
  Northern Ireland Railway System: Investment
  Northern Ireland Railway System: Investment
  Northern Ireland: Transport from North Down to the Centre of Belfast
  Northern Ireland: Transport from North Down to the Centre of Belfast
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly