Sitting of 11 May 2000

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

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 May.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).

  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 17 May at Seven o'clock.

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Manufacturing (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of manufacturing industry in Northumberland. [120503]
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The performance of manufacturing industry in Northumberland is constantly assessed by a number of organisations. The key organisation is the Northumberland strategic partnership which has as its partners local authorities, the North East chamber of commerce, Northumberland health authority, Northumberland training and enterprise council, Northumbria police and Business Link Northumberland. The Government office for the north-east and the regional development agency, ONE NorthEast, are in regular contact with the partnership about business matters in the county.
  Mr. Campbell: I take this opportunity to raise the issue of manufacturing and textiles in Northumberland, especially Cramlington Textiles which was in danger of being sold to an asset stripper. Luckily, we have found a buyer, K Shaws, which is a big textiles company, and work will continue. Unfortunately, there will be about
  992
  100 redundancies, leaving 83 men and women working at the factory. Will my hon. Friend investigate ways in which money can be put into training for the people who will lose their job, or who have already lost their job?
  Dr. Howells: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the fight that he has put up. He has always been a strong advocate of increasing employment and investment in Northumberland, and his constituents must value highly his efforts to ensure continuity of employment and production at Cramlington Textiles and Ellington colliery. Through the new regional development agency, ONE NorthEast, much-needed sites for the manufacturing and service sectors, such as those at Wansbeck and at West Hartford near Cramlington, have been developed. They have already attracted important new investment and will be properly resourced in terms of training.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Two hundred and six thousand jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the current Government came to power. How many of the losses occurred in Northumberland?
  Dr. Howells: I do not believe that Northumberland has been any more acutely affected than any other part of the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to make cheap political points from difficult trading conditions. I am sure he welcomes the work that the Government have done to ensure that proper skills are in place in Northumberland so that new investment can come in place of old industries.

  Motor Manufacturing
  Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the future of motor vehicle manufacturing in the United Kingdom. [120505]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The year 1999 saw the highest number of cars produced since 1972. Although we recognise that there will be changes in the sector, we are confident that it will remain as a major employer in the UK.
  Mr. Gapes: If Ford announces the ending, after 70 years, of car assembly at Dagenham, a devastating blow will be dealt to the economy of east London and to many of my constituents who work there, and there will be serious knock-on consequences throughout the region. Will my right hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with the company, trade unions, local authorities and the Thames gateway partnership, to see what can be done either to continue some form of car assembly at the plant, or, if that is not possible, to ensure that there is massive investment and training to regenerate the economies of east London?
  Mr. Byers: I assure my hon. Friend that discussions have already taken place with the company, trade unions and those involved in local regeneration projects, such as the Thames gateway partnership. If, as expected, Ford announces tomorrow the ending of car production at Dagenham, we hope to delay implementation of that for

  993
  as long as possible so that people can be taken through the process of change and be equipped to deal with their altered circumstances.
  In the light of tomorrow's expected announcement by Ford, we shall announce a plan for the regeneration of Dagenham and the local area. The plan will be based on training to provide skills to those who do not currently have them and to improve the level of existing skills, supporting the setting up of small businesses, modernising manufacturing in the locality, introducing new manufacturing and attracting inward investment. Our objective is to provide new jobs for the future to replace those that might well be lost as a result of the announcement that Ford will make tomorrow.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: The Gaydon research centre in south Warwickshire is not in my constituency, but some of my constituents go there. It is rumoured that Ford is likely to acquire the centre. Is Ford likely to sustain the current activities that take place there?
  Mr. Byers: It is not yet clear whether Ford will say anything specifically about the acquisition of Gaydon from BMW in its announcement tomorrow. We know that as a result of the acquisition of Land Rover in Solihull, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Ford is carefully considering the acquisition of Gaydon because much of the work that goes on there is linked directly to Land Rover. Ford is going through due diligence with BMW in relation to the acquisition of Land Rover and the negotiations are not yet completed, and will not be until June or July, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are still talking to Ford, and indeed BMW, about those outstanding matters.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: The interest that Ford continues to take in the United Kingdom economy and in automotive production—be it vans, Jaguar or Land Rover—shows that it is still committed to Britain. There is gross overcapacity across the motor industry because we are producing far more cars than we can sell. Will my right hon. Friend ask the manufacturers to adopt a more realistic approach and not lurch into crises, given that people have known for years that too many cars are being produced and that there are not enough people to buy them? That is the problem that we have in the car industry, and it is the fault not of the workers but of the marketing people who look at the world through rose-coloured glasses.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. The review of its European operations that Ford is now conducting has been motivated not by the strength of sterling or by the employment laws in the United Kingdom but by the fact that there is overproduction in the European market, running to about 20 or 25 per cent. Tomorrow's announcement will be a mixture of good and bad news, but it will be clear from it that Ford will remain committed to the United Kingdom and that we will still have Ford as a major employer in this country.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Under this Government, the UK has slipped from fourth to eighth in the world competitiveness league. There is more that the Secretary of State could do to help our manufacturing industry, and the motor industry in
  994
  particular. When will he start reducing the extra £30 billion of taxes that the Government have imposed on business? When will the Government start cutting the extra £10 billion of regulatory costs that business now has to bear? Is not it about time that he rolled up his sleeves and started to do a bit of cutting back himself?
  Mr. Byers: I regret the fact that the hon. Lady has clearly not seen the latest manufacturing output figures which were published this morning. If she had, she would have seen that between February and March manufacturing output grew by 0.4 per cent. Indeed, in the first quarter of this year, it rose by 1.6 per cent. compared with the first quarter of last year. Manufacturing in the United Kingdom is not in crisis, as the hon. Lady would like to claim. It is strong, where there has been investment, and productivity has improved. That is the reality of the situation. It is about time that the hon. Lady put facts before prejudice.
  Mr. Mark Todd: May I first relate the concern of Toyota in my constituency at the continuing high value of sterling and its effect on its competitiveness? What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Chancellor on the subject? May I also draw his attention to the continued opportunity for inward investment in this country through the retention of the Rolls-Royce car brand, which is currently owned by BMW?
  Mr. Byers: I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, BMW will be able to say something about its intentions regarding the Rolls-Royce brand. I know that it is giving detailed consideration to the issue. My hon. Friend raises an important point about the value of sterling, particularly in relation to the single European currency. The current euro-sterling exchange rate cannot be justified by any view of the long-term economic fundamentals, and I would hope that, when people consider the position and look at those long-term fundamentals, they will realise that.

  Post Office
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the reorganisation of the Post Office. [120506]
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I have received a number and variety of representations over time about the Government's proposals to transfer the Post Office to plc status under the provisions of the Postal Services Bill. Internal reorganisations of the Post Office are a matter for Post Office management.
  Mr. Amess: Will the Government listen to Post Office customers, postmistresses and postmasters all over the United Kingdom, and particularly in Southend, West, who are disgusted by the Government's proposals to disorganise the Post Office? Does the Minister realise that as a result of his Government's damaging policies, as many as 500 sub-post offices will close? Will he explain to the House how he expects those hard-pressed small

  995
  businesses to generate enough income to replace the third of their income that they will lose by 2003 as a result of his Government's policies?
  Mr. Johnson: I just about managed to catch that question. We are modernising the Post Office and investing £500 million to computerise the network. With regard to closures, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that the record number of closures was in 1992, when 478 post offices closed. One reason may have been the introduction of automated credit transfer by the previous Government in 1990. The challenge for Royal Mail in the hon. Gentleman's area is to deliver a package between Basildon and Southend as quickly as he managed to move shortly before the last election.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: We all eagerly await the report of the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit on the future of the Post Office. The prospect of subsidy has been held out to us by the Secretary of State. May not we have to go down that road if we are to preserve post offices in small towns and villages, of which there are many in Pendle?
  Mr. Johnson: We await the conclusions of the PIU report. There has always been an element of subsidy in the post office network—the cross-subsidy between heavily used post offices and those in more remote rural locations, to the tune of £30 million a year. The clause is in the Bill in case we need it. The way forward that everyone supports is for the vast majority of post offices to be commercially viable because of the number of transactions across the post office counter.
  Mr. James Gray: Since the Government came to power, eight sub-post offices in my constituency have closed—of the 500 which it is proposed will be closed this year. That greatly exceeds the number in 1992, which the Minister mentioned a moment ago. How can he justify the fact that he is introducing one of the most damaging pieces of legislation on sub-post offices by saying, "You lot did worse than we did"? If sub-post offices such as those in Colerne and Box in my constituency close—they are threatened with closure this year—how will people pick up their pensions in cash, even if the Government put in place some procedure by which they could do so?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There will not be 500 closures this year. I do not know where that figure came from. The number of closures for the financial year 1999–2000, the last year for which figures are available, is 383—well below the 478 that I mentioned earlier. In the past 20 years, 25 per cent. of the network has closed. Ten per cent. of the rural network closed between 1990 and 1997. As Opposition Members know full well, given that half a million people a year are moving voluntarily to ACT, there will not be a solution to the problem until we can find a way to ensure that the Post Office has other forms of transaction coming across post office counters to protect their future.
  Fiona Mactaggart: May I thank my hon. Friend for his concern about a post office that was to be closed, which I raised in the Chamber on a previous occasion—the post office on Slough trading estate? Partly because of his concern, a new post office will open
  996
  there in July so that the service will be restored to the businesses and the people who live in that part of Slough. May I offer my hon. Friend the chance to come and open it?
  Mr. Johnson: As I worked as a postman in Slough, and as I worked at that office, it would be a delight for me to open it.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to sub-postmasters and their staff throughout Northern Ireland who, during the last 30 years, have courageously continued to provide the people with a service despite intimidation, violence and continual attacks on their persons? Does the Minister understand the concern now felt by those sub-postmasters about their future, in view of the Government's proposal to extend ACT provisions? Will he give special consideration to the position of sub-post offices in rural areas in Northern Ireland which, in spite of the violence of the last 30 years, have continued to provide a much-needed service?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. During the troubles in Northern Ireland, 16 post office workers were killed on duty and clerical staff were declared a legitimate target by one terrorist group in the early 1980s. They were subject to proxy bombings and hostage attacks. We should indeed pay tribute to those who continued to work under the most difficult circumstances.
  We will ensure that there is a proper future for the post office network. We are determined to protect post offices, not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in Northern Ireland generally—although obviously it is important for us to do that—but throughout the United Kingdom, and that is what we are working towards.
  The most difficult option is to grasp the nettle now. If we had done nothing, the network would have gradually drifted away, as it has for the last 25 years.
  Mr. Phil Sawford: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who rely on post offices are among the weakest and most vulnerable in our communities? Does he share my concern about the Conservatives' continued suggestions that we, the Government, intend to withdraw opportunities for cash payments from post offices, despite all the ministerial statements and all the leaflets that have been produced? Will he again confirm that we have no intention of withdrawing the facility that allows people to receive benefits and pensions in cash if they so desire?
  Mr. Johnson: That is a good point. It is important for us not to undermine the network by continually talking it down, because that affects the properties of sub-postmasters and, for instance, their ability to obtain bank loans.
  Let me repeat that we have given a pledge that all pensioners and benefit recipients who still want to draw their pensions and benefits in cash across a post office counter—undiluted by bank charges, and weekly if they are paid weekly now—will be able to do so, before and after the change.
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the future provision of post office services. [120508]
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government are fully committed to a nationwide network of post offices, and recognise the important role that they play in local communities. We are contributing nearly £500 million to the cost of equipping the network with a modern, automated online IT platform. The system will be installed throughout the network comprising 18,500 post offices, enabling the Post Office to improve existing services and take advantage of new business opportunities. The report from the performance and innovation unit of the Cabinet Office on the longer-term future of the post office network is expected soon.
  Mr. Brady: Does the Minister realise that in some of the parts of my constituency with the greatest amount of social housing, sub-post offices stand to lose up to 70 per cent. in turnover? The same applies to the constituencies of many Members on both sides of the House. Does that not mean that when post offices are closed as a result of the Government's policy, those who need the services most will lose them more often?
  Last week the Labour party lost 600 seats in the local elections, and the Prime Minister said that he would start listening. Is it not time that the Government started listening in this instance, and changed their policy in order to save post offices?
  Mr. Johnson: I know of the dependency of post offices in urban areas on the payments to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Indeed, I published the answer to a written parliamentary question giving the hon. Gentleman and others the figures.
  Let me emphasise again that the Government are not looking to close post offices; we are looking to protect them and to keep them open. I repeat that 25 per cent. of the network has disappeared in 20 years. The Conservatives' solution was to break the Post Office Counters network away from the rest of the Post Office, and to privatise Royal Mail and Parcelforce. We will take no lessons on the Post Office, especially from the Conservative party.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that some sub-post offices, which have quite a lot of customers, are nevertheless egged on by the Conservative party, which continues to tell them that they will close? Does he find it worrying that although the Government make it clear, as my hon. Friend has done again this morning, that people will be able to get their benefits and pensions in cash, some post offices are shooting themselves in the foot by frightening their customers away? The message to all those who have signed the petitions should be, "Use your local post office and you won't lose it."
  Mr. Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I recently visited post offices in his constituency to emphasise it. Since the rally that took place in Westminster in April, when the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters met the Prime Minister, dialogue has continued between me, my
  998
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others in Government to ensure a shared vision that allows sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to stop the propaganda to which my hon. Friend referred and to know that they should not only survive but thrive in the network that we aim to create.
  Mr. David Heath: Given that the performance and innovation unit's report seems to be travelling second class, will the Minister put some flesh on the bones of the shared vision? Has he discussed with the Chancellor the scale of and timetable for any subsidy? Has he consulted the Secretary of State for Social Security and thus shown that the Government are cross cutting, not merely cost cutting? Most important, has he a shared vision with postmasters and postmistresses in which they have confidence?
  Mr. Johnson: On the PIU report travelling second class, we said that the exercise would be a cross-cutting, thorough and comprehensive examination of the network, and that we would publish the report in the spring. We still intend to do that. That should be contrasted with the previous Government's review, which began in 1992, muddled through until 1994 and began a new phase and, in 1997, ended where it began. Discussions with other Departments take place all the time. We are considering not a Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Social Security or Treasury issue, but one that involves the whole Government. Our discussions and the PIU report are intended to find a Government solution.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Kent Thameside)
  Mr. Chris Pond: What assistance he proposes for small and medium-sized enterprises in Kent Thameside. [120509]
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Business Link network provides a range of advice and assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises in Kent Thameside, including guidance on IT, exporting and sources of finance.
  Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that she and her colleagues worked hard to win assisted area status for Kent Thameside and other parts of north Kent and that she shares my disappointment at the European Commission's rejection of those proposals. Will she consider other ways in which we can help small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency—and in Kent Thameside generally—to unlock the potential for prosperity and employment that we know exists there?
  Ms Hewitt: I do indeed share my hon. Friend's disappointment and that of small businesses in his constituency that we were not able to include Medway and Gravesham in the assisted areas map. However, I can confirm that all the areas that were previously proposed for tier 2 status will be designated as tier 3 areas. Small businesses in Medway and Gravesham will

  999
  therefore be able to apply for enterprise grant schemes. That will undoubtedly help many businesses to thrive in future.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Now that Medway and north Kent have lost their assisted area designation, will the Minister explain to small businesses in Kent a letter that Commissioner Mario Monti sent to the Conservative leader of Kent county council? It states:
  the UK failed to notify its proposal for the new regional aid map in time. In fact, we had asked Member States as early as February 1998 to submit their new maps by March 1999. The UK did not notify until July 1999 and its proposal raised important questions as regards its compatibility with the state aid rules on national regional aid.
  We have been round this course before. The Secretary of State does not know what he is doing on regional aid. Is not it time that he rolled up his sleeves and learned the discipline of delivery on time?
  Ms Hewitt: I think that the hon. Lady is in danger of getting her record stuck. We submitted our proposals for the assisted areas map in line with the timetable that was agreed with the Commission. Of course we were disappointed that we were unable to include all the areas that we would have liked because of the need to reduce population coverage and to satisfy the Commission on the point about which it came back to us—whether or not Gravesham and Medway constituted a self-contained area.

  Industrial Assistance
  Dr. Vincent Cable: What criteria he uses in deciding which sectors receive selective industrial assistance. [120510]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): All sectors are eligible to apply for assistance, subject to European Union restrictions. Aid to firms operating in certain sectors, such as coal, steel, shipbuilding and motor vehicles, is governed by other European codes.
  Dr. Cable: So that business can be reassured that assistance is provided on a genuinely objective, nondiscriminatory basis free of political interference, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the logic that has led the Government to find help, as he says, for the coal, steel, car, ship and other industries, but not for the chemical, textiles, paper-making and other sectors that have faced the same competitive pressures and difficulties in the job market? Can he give examples from his period as Secretary of State of when he has declined industrial assistance for applicants from particular sectors?
  Mr. Byers: We look at three broad matters when considering assistance. First, we need to support investment—either inward investment to attract a mobile project that could go anywhere in the world or projects such as the airbus initiative, where investment is made in the form of launch aid, which is repaid to the Government. Secondly, we need to ensure that competition is not unfair. For example, we must ensure that our shipbuilding industry is not at a disadvantage, given that the industry in other parts of Europe receives Government support.
  1000
  Thirdly, we need to assist industry through the process of change. That was one reason why we provided £100 million to the coal industry, where the process of change occurred because of the lifting of the stricter gas consents policy. There is therefore a rational approach to those matters that does not discriminate against particular sectors. We are considering how we might be able to support the textiles industry in a way that falls within those three principles.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend note the observation in the consultation document from the national textiles and clothing strategy group, which the Department is considering, that take-up of regional selective assistance by textiles and clothing companies is remarkably low? Will he undertake to ensure that the officials who administer regional selective assistance and the enterprise grants take a positive attitude to investment in our eighth largest manufacturing industry and, specifically, that they encourage textiles and clothing companies to make applications for assistance and help so that take-up is increased?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are looking at the responses that we have received through the consultation process on the textiles strategy and we shall announce our conclusions in a few weeks' time. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are taken on board as we arrive at our conclusions. She also raises an important point about employment in manufacturing. While recognising that there have been difficulties in recent times for certain sectors of manufacturing, it is important to set them in the historical context.
  Since we took office, between May 1997 and February of this year 160,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. I regret that 160,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in almost three years, but it is worth comparing that with the average fall in employment for each year under the Conservative Government from 1979 to 1997: for each of those 18 years, 140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. That is the Tory record on manufacturing—one of neglect. This Government's record is one of continued modernising investment.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is deep unease in the ranks of senior civil servants in his Department over the shambles of his industrial policy and that, as a result, he has taken the unprecedented step of moving a number of senior policy advisers to other parts of the Department? In particular, can he confirm that Michael Atkinson has been removed as the director of the coal unit and sent to the resources and business competitiveness group, and that Alan Wright has been removed as director of the coal health claims unit and sent to the finance department? If that is correct, can he tell the House the reasons for those moves?
  Mr. Byers: I gave the hon. Gentleman a parliamentary reply a few days ago that put all that on the record, so he should just read the official record and find out. These issues are decided by the permanent secretary; I have had no involvement in them. It is wholly appropriate that that should be the case.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: If any of those civil servants were around when the Tories shut the 31 pits in the early '90s, then good riddance to them. I hope that my right hon. Friend played a part in moving them.
  The reason why it is necessary to refer to selective assistance is that I, as a firm believer in intervention in the labour market, believe that, if it is correct to pay out large subsidies to farming interests, it cannot be wrong to assist where it is necessary in the industrial market generally, so it would not worry me at all. In fact, I would be pleased to know that, from now until the next general election, my right hon. Friend and others will make statements here to say that they are intervening before breakfast, dinner and tea to ensure that British workers keep their jobs. One thing is absolutely certain: unemployment has fallen for a good number of years. We want to ensure that it does not start rising before that next election is called.
  Mr. Byers: The issue of intervention is important. I disagree with my hon. Friend on these matters, and he knows it because we have debated them at length. My view, and that of the Government, is that there should be a presumption against intervention. We need to look at the three areas where we are prepared to intervene very much as exceptions. The reason is that history shows that, in the long run, intervention and state subsidies do not build strong, profitable companies. It is only by having strong, profitable companies that we will have long-term employment.

  Employment Relations (Seasonal Staff)
  Mr. Andrew George: If he will make a statement on employment relations in respect of employers who repeatedly reappoint temporary staff on a seasonal basis. [120511]
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): We would always encourage employers to treat their staff fairly, whatever the basis on which they are engaged. Many employment rights apply to temporary and seasonal staff.
  Mr. George: Is the Minister aware that, in west Cornwall, which is characterised by the lowest wages in the country and high unemployment, many low-paid workers such as classroom assistants have a pattern of employment, lay-off and re-employment that makes them ineligible for benefit during the long weeks and months during which they are unpaid? Does he accept that there is a need for joined-up government attention and action to ensure that the best interests of those low-paid workers are protected?
  Mr. Johnson: I am aware of some of the problems. It is important to retain the flexibility that seasonal and temporary staff bring, but the improvements that we have introduced include making provision last summer to ensure that temporary and seasonal staff are not allowed to sign away their rights on unfair dismissal. The minimum wage had an effect on such staff. Later in the year, the fixed-term working directive will be debated, which again will look at that particular matter in great detail.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: The Minister will be aware that seaside communities such as
  1002
  Scarborough and Whitby have a seasonal employment problem, inasmuch as people are taken on for the season. What discussions have taken place with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—particularly with the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting—regarding the tourism and hospitality industry, where there is a problem in terms of the seasonality of employment? What information packages will be made available for small employers, which are the bedrock of many of these economies?
  Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We looked at this matter when we introduced the minimum wage—and we included such staff—and again when we introduced the working time directive. For the first time, all those workers now have the right to rest breaks and paid holidays. We will discuss with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—which has an important role—the introduction of the fixed-term working directive to ensure that we give maximum protection without destroying the flexibility which my hon. Friend will appreciate is necessary in those areas.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am glad that the Minister will look carefully at the directive. In the last Parliament, when the Select Committee on Education and Employment looked at temporary working, it found that the French—who had tried to legislate against temporary working—had 25 per cent. of their employees on temporary contracts, whereas, within the United Kingdom, where there is no legislation against temporary contracts, the figure was only 6 or 7 per cent. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that before he signs up to job-destroying directives coming out of Europe, which are causing so many problems in France and Germany.
  Mr. Johnson: We have no intention of stopping people working on fixed contracts. Many people choose to do so, and have done for many years. However, neither do we have any intention of introducing bad employment practice ghettos for people who are on such contracts. I do not agree that we have introduced job-destroying measures. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 20 years, long-term unemployment has reduced by 50 per cent. and youth unemployment has reduced by 70 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's dogma has been destroyed by the reality of this Government promoting social justice while ensuring that the number of jobs is increased.

  Consumer Rights
  Mr. John Smith: What plans he has to extend further the rights of consumers. [120512]
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): In our White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers", published last year, we set out how we intend to improve consumer law to help people get a fair deal. We are consulting on these changes to the law, which will provide tougher sanctions against rogue traders, tougher controls against the misdescription of services and better advice to consumers.
  Mr. Smith: Has my hon. Friend's Department any plans to attempt to liberalise trade with the European trademark directive, which has resulted in a ridiculous

  1003
  situation where British retailers cannot market branded clothes at a competitive price because of bureaucratic European rules? The British consumer has been ripped off for too long, especially on designer clothes.
  Dr. Howells: The Government are working with other sympathetic EU Governments, especially Sweden, to examine—and, where appropriate, promote—the benefits to consumers of relaxing the current European Union rules governing trademarks, parallel imports and other restrictions on the free movement and sale of goods. There should be no acceptance by consumers or retailers that people in Britain should be paying the same number of pounds for goods and services as they would be paying in dollars in the United States.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister agree that, while addressing people's rights as consumers, we must allay their concerns about health and the environment? In view of the concerns expressed about the health implications of mobile telephony, why are the Government not making a statement today about the report addressing those concerns that is published today? When will they come to Parliament and give us time to discuss the issue?
  Dr. Howells: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: What measures he is considering to encourage responsible risk-taking in business start-ups. [120513]
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Small Business Service will encourage people who are starting or growing a business to seek support from Business Links. There is good research evidence to show that those who do receive support and advice can significantly reduce the risks that they take and are more likely to stay in business.
  Mr. Pollard: What measures are the Government taking to ensure that those who have incurred bankruptcy because of reckless or fraudulent practice are treated differently from those who have simply made honest mistakes?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We are reforming bankruptcy law to distinguish between the vast majority who are honest and responsible risk takers, and the minority who have engaged in fraudulent practice. Our measures will ensure that those responsible risk takers will be discharged earlier from bankruptcy and, indeed, when appropriate, given help to set up again in business. At the same time, however, we shall protect creditors and impose tougher penalties on the reckless and dishonest minority.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Today, when the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister encourage young entrepreneurs to go into business, will they also advise them about the business risks? Will they, for example, warn them not to go into information technology and become specialists so that they do not get clobbered by IR35? Will they warn them not to forget
  1004
  to build into their cashflow forecasts the costs of administering the Government's ill-thought-through schemes, such as the working families tax credit, which will cost business £340 million in administrative costs alone?
  Will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State also, however, encourage those young entrepreneurs to develop thick skins—so that, when they eventually become world-class businesses and discover that yesterday's entrepreneurs have become today's fat cats, they will understand that there is nothing personal in it, just new Labour looking for a soundbite?
  Ms Hewitt: Well, that was a very snappy question. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not feel able to welcome this morning's launch by the Prime Minister and business organisations of Enterprise Insight, which will indeed encourage more people of all ages to take the plunge into setting up a business. As for business burdens, perhaps I can remind her of her own words when, as a Minister in the previous Government, she said that she would be the first to say that they did not do very well on regulation. [Interruption.] We are reducing the administrative costs to business. Indeed, the new chief executive of the Small Business Service sits on the regulatory reform panel, which will help to ensure that we improve the regulatory environment for small and large businesses.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: When it comes to risk taking, is there not a distinction between caution and inaction? Many firms that are at the cutting edge of developments in sectors such as the biosciences are finding it extremely difficult to obtain necessary capital from banks and other financial institutions. Does that not undermine the work of the small firms loan guarantee scheme?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The issue that is most often raised with us by small businesses is the need to obtain proper finance, and finance on the terms that they require. That is why we have created the enterprise fund, which will ensure not only continuation of the very successful small firms loan guarantee scheme, but the creation of regional venture capital funds to help close the equity gap in funding for small and growing businesses.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Christopher Gill: What assessment he has made of the effect of climate change levy upon the competitive position of aluminium converters. [120514]
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The effect of the climate change levy on companies engaged in aluminium conversion—rolling and extrusion—will depend on whether they benefit from the various levy exemptions, whether they take advantage of the proposed new scheme of capital allowances for energy-efficient investments, and the extent to which they may qualify for a discount from the levy.
  Mr. Gill: We all know that the Government have difficulty with simple arithmetic, but does the Minister understand that if the Lawson Mardon Star Company—an aluminium converter and roller in my constituency, which

  1005
  employs 600 people—is obliged to pay somewhere in the region of £600,000 or £700,000 per annum, while expecting to receive only £10,000 in employers national insurance rebate, the cost to that company will be of the order of £1,000 per employee? Does she realise that that poll tax on workers in manufacturing industry, coming on top of all the other cost burdens imposed by the Government in the past three years, will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back—or is she content to see British workers' jobs exported to countries where environmental protection is nothing more than a sick joke?
  Mrs. Liddell: I welcome that speech—I thought that I was going to get a question. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not prepared to take into account the environmental obligations on every country and every company. The climate change levy is a key element in tackling climate change. A draft national programme was published on 9 March. The Aluminium Federation has been involved in discussions with the Government about the levy. We have just come to the end of a three-year programme on competitiveness in the aluminium industry that was partly funded by the DTI. We have continued to work with the industry, particularly on issues of sustainable development. For companies throughout the world, climate change issues will not go away. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has revised his plans for the climate change levy, putting in place capital allowances to assist industry to become much more energy-efficient. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not prepared to bury our heads in the sand on climate change issues.
  Mr. Richard Page: Does the Minister accept that the perfectly reasonable question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) expresses the concerns felt not just by the aluminium industry but by the whole of industry on the climate change tax? Is she aware that industry feels that the DTI has abandoned its sponsorship role, particularly on sustainability? I have one direct question for her. As the various agreements that have been reached require permission from the European Union, because they will be regarded as state aid, will she give a guarantee that the levy will not be introduced until the Commission has granted permission? If not, it will cause hundreds and thousands of job losses.
  Mrs. Liddell: Again, the Conservatives have underlined their complete opposition to taking any action to ensure that this country has a sustainable economic future. The hon. Gentleman should take into account that, throughout the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, there is a need to tackle climate change issues. British industry has an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage on that. The Government have consulted widely on climate change issues. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been involved in discussions with industry, and the DTI has acted as a sponsor for the aluminium industry and the entire industrial sector. My right hon. Friend will reveal the outcome of his consultation in due course.

  Producer Responsibility
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will make a statement on his Department's discussions with industry on producer responsibility. [120515]
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The Department has regular discussions with industry sectors engaged in producer responsibility initiatives. In March, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce attended a forum on producer responsibility, organised by the associate parliamentary sustainable waste group, at which she was able to listen to the views of industry representatives on a number of aspects of producer responsibility.
  Dr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend encouraging industry to develop schemes in advance of the implementation of European Union directives on producer responsibility? Does he consider that electronics and electrical goods industries, particularly the car manufacturing and retail industry, will be able to respond positively and early to directives that may be in the pipeline?
  Dr. Howells: I am well aware of the part that my hon. Friend has played in formulating a deposit system for white goods. He will know that EU directives on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic equipment and for vehicles are under development. We have been discussing the directives with the industries concerned. A number of manufacturers have already introduced voluntary schemes. For example, the mobile phone industry operates a take-back and recycling scheme through retailers and network operators, and a voluntary scheme for end-of-life vehicles has been in place since 1997. Those schemes demonstrate the commitment of companies to producer responsibility and will provide valuable experience for United Kingdom business when implementing the directives.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that one producer responsibility that industry already admirably fulfils is to warn the Government of the serious danger of the massively damaging burden of regulation from which small companies, in particular, suffer? Does he agree that industry is right to urge a further cut in red tape, the introduction of sunset clauses, exemptions for small firms from the most damaging regulations and longer consultation and lead-in times for the introduction of new regulations? In short, does the hon. Gentleman agree that industry is behaving extremely responsibly in urging the abandonment of the Labour party manifesto and its replacement by the policies of the commonsense Conservative small business manifesto?
  Dr. Howells: No, but I am thinking of putting in a claim for industrial deafness.

  Kosovo (Regeneration)
  Mr. Roger Casale: What steps are being taken by his Department to assist British companies to participate in the regeneration of Kosovo. [120516]
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): At the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, British Trade International established the Government/private sector taskforce last June to promote and co-ordinate the United Kingdom's response to the reconstruction opportunities in

  1007
  Kosovo. Arising out of that, a consortium of British companies, with financial support from the Government, was awarded the concession to manage Kosovo's power sector over the winter period. The United Kingdom was also awarded the contract for the first phase of upgrading Pristina airport. A website has been established to assist the British community and a BTI official has also been seconded to Kosovo.
  Mr. Casale: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she join me in congratulating Racal, in my constituency, for winning the contract to install the new avionics system at Pristina airport and to make safe civilian flights into Kosovo? Does she agree that the outstanding role that Britain has played in the humanitarian relief effort in the reconstruction of Kosovo has placed the reputation of British companies in the region in very good stead? Will she further encourage British companies to support the work of the British Government and British nongovernmental organisations in the region in providing humanitarian relief, thereby taking advantage of new trade and investment opportunities in the Balkans?
  Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am happy to join him in congratulating Racal in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be visiting Kosovo in the next few weeks. A key factor will be to ensure that, as we move from the emergency reconstruction of Kosovo into longer-term strategic recovery programmes, British industry will be able to contract for much of the employment. The British industrial sector is held in high regard in Kosovo because sound commercial business sense has been linked with a strong humanitarian agenda.

  Burdens on Business
  Ms Linda Perham: What initiatives his Department is taking in conjunction with other Departments to reduce burdens on business. [120517]
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have set up a new panel, chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to hold Ministers to account for their regulatory
  1008
  performance. David Irwin, the chief executive of the new Small Business Service, is a member of that panel, and the Small Business Service will be scrutinising all proposed regulations to assess their impact on small businesses and to ensure that all officials and Ministers concerned with regulation think small first.
  Ms Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the measures that she is taking with other Departments to reduce red tape for small businesses. Is she aware that, between 1994 and 1996, the Conservative Government introduced 10,000 extra regulations, and that according to the recent OECD economic outlook, the UK has fewer regulations than other OECD countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, as well as supporting enterprise, are also delivering fairness at work for thousands of employees, including the national minimum wage, paid holidays and family-friendly policies?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The OECD confirmed in its latest benchmarking study that economic product market regulation in the United Kingdom is lower than in any other industrial country, including the United States of America. I entirely agree that it is essential to distinguish between administrative costs and red tape, and providing decent standards at work for employees. Conservative Members, as they have confirmed again today, opposed the introduction of the minimum wage, decent basic holidays for employees and the working families tax credit. They have also opposed measures to help parents balance work and family.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Has the Minister not read the report of her own taskforce, chaired by Lord Haskins, which concluded that entrepreneurs have been distracted from running or enlarging their businesses by the cumulative burden of taxation, employment, public protection and environmental legislation? Does she agree or disagree?
  Ms Hewitt: We have asked the better regulation taskforce to help us continue to improve the situation and to continue reducing the burden of red tape upon business. I welcome the taskforce' s report. We are studying its recommendations seriously and shall respond within 60 days.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MAY—Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 16 MAY—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "UK Manufacturing and Enterprise" followed by a debate entitled "The Future of the Teaching Profession". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000.
WEDNESDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 18 MAY—Second Reading of the Care Standards Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 19 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 MAY—Remaining stages of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill.
TUESDAY 23 MAY—Second Reading of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 MAY—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 25 MAY—Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received.
Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment debate.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether on Thursday 25 May she envisages the House sitting at 9.30 am, which was the pattern that was adopted before the Easter recess?
The House has had statements on Sierra Leone, but has not the time come for a full day's debate on the matter, not least because we have not had a foreign affairs debate for some time and because the commitment to Sierra Leone may be more enduring than was at first thought?
Has the right hon. Lady yet decided how the House might best debate economic matters during the parliamentary year? I raised the subject a long time ago and the issue has not yet been resolved.
1010
In the light of today's report on mobile phones, are Ministers planning to make a statement on this potential health hazard and give the House an opportunity to ask questions about the safety of our younger constituents?
The right hon. Lady will be aware that there is mounting interest in how the House manages itself. Has not the time come for a debate on the Liaison Committee's report and a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on secondary legislation? Is there any sign on the horizon of debates on either the House of Lords or the intergovernmental conference?
Now that we have in place a mayor and assembly for London, is there not a need for a dispute resolution procedure, as we have for Scotland and Wales? Clearly such a procedure will be needed for London. Will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement to explain how conflicts between the Government and the mayor will be resolved?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the pattern for the Thursday sitting on 25 May. At present, it seems likely that it will be an ordinary Thursday sitting. Obviously, that depends to some degree on the scale of the amendments that we expect to receive from another place. I shall return to that subject for the House as soon as I can.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on foreign affairs. If I understood correctly, he asked for a specific debate on Sierra Leone. I am not sure about that, but will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about economic debates. He was right to remind me of that, and I shall certainly bear the point in mind when considering the pattern of debates for the future.
On mobile phones, the Government are responding as speedily as possible to several of the report's recommendations, and we will issue advice on the others in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health may well answer a question about that. I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, and I am confident that he will seek to keep the House informed.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's request for a discussion on the report of the Liaison Committee and on the report on secondary legislation of the Select Committee on Procedure. I share his view that they are important reports on how the House will conduct its future business. In particular, the Liaison Committee's weighty and far-reaching report has substantial implications for all hon. Members. It advances proposals that would create different patterns of work and responsibilities between one group of Members and another. The House as a whole will want to consider those proposals seriously.
I am mindful of the request for a debate on Lords reform and the intergovernmental conference.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's final remarks, I believe that the devolution settlement in London is as well known to him as it is to the rest of us. We very much hope that there will be a creative relationship with the new assembly and mayor, and we shall seek to further that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 312 on the Tobin tax?

1011
[That this House notes that international currency speculation currently stands at about $1.5 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to trade in real goods and services; further notes that such enormous speculative flows substantially undermine the powers of national governments and regional blocs; believes that a small levy on such speculation, known as the Tobin Tax after the name of the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both help to dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, raising as much as $250 billion each year for good causes such as development and environmental protection; recognises that such levy would have to be universal or as near to that as possible and contain safeguards to minimise and eliminate tax evasion; notes that the Tobin Tax has the backing of the Canadian Parliament, the Finnish Government and campaign groups such as War on Want; and urges the Government to discuss the concept with its partners in international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, G8 and the European Union with a view to drawing up an internationally co-ordinated and feasible tax regime for currency speculation.]

The motion has been signed by 108 Members from both sides of the House, and calls for an international tax on currency speculation that would raise massive amounts of money to tackle third-world problems. There was an hour-and-a-half debate on the matter in Westminster Hall, when the Government's totally inadequate response and position were given. Would it not help the House to understand the Government's position if we had a full debate on the Floor of the House about this important issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern, knowing that he takes great interest in and favours those proposals. With respect to him, however, although he asked for a debate on the Floor of the House so that the Government's position could be made clear, my understanding both of the Government's position and of my hon. Friend's remarks is that our position is clear, just not what he wishes it to be.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House note that there is widespread support on both sides of the House for an early debate on Sierra Leone?
I endorse the view that we cannot go on having endless delays in debating the House of Lords. That debate has been postponed twice, I think. May we please have a date for it? There was a suggestion last week that we might debate the matter before the Whitsun recess, but it seems to have gone beyond that.
Will we have a statement, or a debate, on the Government's change of policy on pensions? In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
We therefore decided to start with the poorest pensioners first…We are now seeing how we can help those other pensioners.—[Official Report, 10 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 834-35.]
The Government resisted Liberal Democrat support for a change in the standard pension payments. When will we have a statement or debate so that we may know what the Government's pensions policy means?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall draw the concerns expressed on Sierra Leone to the attention of my right hon. Friend the
1012
Foreign Secretary. Several foreign affairs issues exist, and it is not possible to find time on the Floor of the House for separate debates on all of them. That was why we brought into being and recommend Westminster Hall. I shall bear in mind remarks suggesting that there is pressure for a debate on foreign affairs.
The debate on Lords reform has been postponed only once—and, let me remind the hon. Gentleman, at the request of the Opposition.
Mr. Tyler: The other Opposition.
Mrs. Beckett: I accept that it was the request of the Conservative Opposition, not the Liberal Democrat Opposition. Nevertheless, the debate was delayed at the Opposition's request. I am not aware—[Interruption.]— Children, children. I am not aware of any indication that a debate would be held before Whitsun, although, of course, I realise that there is pressure for such a debate—indeed, the Government intend to schedule one.
I heard yesterday's exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, but I am not aware of—nor did my right hon. Friend indicate—any change in policy. Indeed, he made it plain that our manifesto said that we would focus help for pensioners on the poorest first, because the gap between the poorest and the best-off pensioners is so substantial. We would then hope to move on to help those in less great need, and we are now discussing how to do so. Furthermore, it was my impression that my right hon. Friend pointed out that that was exactly what was argued for in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
Mr. Keith Darvill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern and anguish of the many Ford employees in my constituency who work at Dagenham and at the Ford establishments in south and west Essex. Can she find time for an urgent debate on the effects of that decision on the east London and south Essex Thames gateway area, and on any possible measures that the Government propose to mitigate its outcome?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents. I am well aware of the powerful emotional symbolism to the area of Ford at Dagenham. However, my hon. Friend will be aware—as I am—that Ford has made it clear that an announcement will be made. The full nature of the matter is not yet plain. No doubt, when the announcements are in the public domain, the House will discuss and comment on them in whatever way is possible.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on planning applications? Is she aware of my amazement at the two letters that I received this morning from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes)? One refused to call in a planning application—off Asker lane—even though a vast number of people in Matlock wanted that to be done. The second letter informed me that the Government have decided to call in a planning application for Duffield fire station, which many people are keen should be developed—including the Labour-controlled Derbyshire fire authority.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot offer to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, although I

1013
realise that such issues are often of burning concern in a locality. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman will fully recognise that, to some degree, Ministers act in a quasi-judicial capacity in such matters, so I should be unwise to be drawn into commenting on the merits of any potential decisions. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will weigh them all carefully.
Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of timetabling during the past few days. On Tuesday night, despite the lateness of the hour, many Members were extremely pleased that there was a guaranteed finishing time, even though it was at 12.28 am. May we look forward to further such experiments—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—on timetabling in the near future?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks and congratulations, although I am not sure that they should be directed to me. As she rightly points out, the Government and the Modernisation Committee have argued that programming debates ensures better and more effective use of parliamentary time, and that all parts of legislation are properly examined as the House would want. She will also know that a competent Opposition would welcome programming. I have previously pointed that out at the Dispatch Box. However, she will have heard the noises from Opposition Members that suggest that there is some divergence of view on the matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: We are used to our forces being required to pull the chestnuts out of the fire after failures in Labour's foreign policy, but it would surely be a new departure for them to be pitched into the flames of the growing conflagration of the civil war in Sierra Leone. Will the Leader of the House explain how Her Majesty's Government can possibly give priority to fur farming and royal parks trading over the safety of our armed forces in a situation that—now that British nationals have largely been evacuated—does not affect our national interest one little bit?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman's comments are, as always, wholly negative. I am surprised that it is his contention that we should ignore developments in Sierra Leone and ignore circumstances in which Britain can contribute to an improvement in public order—for our own citizens, as well as for others. On what the House debates, I accept that he raises an important matter, but I very much doubt whether the welfare and safety of a single British soldier will be much affected by whether we discuss it next week.
Mr. Frank Roy: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time to debate the Government's attitude to rip-off Britain? She will know that more than 20,000 families in the United Kingdom have lost money because of the closure of the Uno furniture retailers, and I am sure that, like me, other Members have experience of dealing with the problems that that has caused for our constituents. Customers of the company feel particularly ripped off, because they have lost their hard-earned savings, they will not receive their
1014
furniture and they will find themselves at the bottom of the pile when any recompense is given. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter fully.
Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point that the problems that his constituents experience as a result of commercial developments in the area are problems that he feels are part of a bad relationship between consumers and some elements of the business community. I understand that that can cause great distress in a locality, but I fear that I cannot offer to find time on the Floor of the House for such a debate. My hon. Friend might like to seek an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the apparent delay in bringing forth the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly order and a debate on the Royal Ulster Constabulary anything to do with a problem of smoke and mirrors? The House is also aware that civil servants advise Government and that the Clerks of the House advise Members. I understand that, in the Welsh Assembly and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, civil servants advise Members. How can there be real scrutiny of government if the same people advise the Government and the Assembly?
Mrs. Beckett: On the hon. Gentleman's opening remark, most people in the House very much hope that, whatever discussions are taking place, they will come to fruition in a way that will forward the peace process in Northern Ireland. His final remark about how the Assembly is serviced and from where it takes advice is not a matter for me. No doubt he will seek to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; I will certainly draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Ms Julia Drown: The millennium year is ticking away and, although we have the technology to get to the moon and to look at the worldwide web on mobile phones, we have not yet tackled the problem of millions of people still dying from a lack of basic facilities and millions more living in abject poverty and poor health. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend saw a recent television programme that showed that 9 million people in India are blind for want of a cataract operation that costs just £15.
One of the issues facing many of the poorest countries is unsustainable debt. I know that the Government have been at the forefront of tackling the problem, but much more still needs to be done. The next G8 summit is in July, so will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the issue before the summit and as soon as possible? All the minds in the House could get together to make sure that this country leads the way and that we and the international community do everything that we can to tackle poverty. As we move into the new century, millions of people should be able to live in countries that have a firm footing for real development in the future.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she takes a great interest in this issue and expresses a concern that is felt deeply in the House and, to some extent, across the House. I accept, of course, her concern about the G8 discussions that will take place in July. I am

1015
grateful for her recognition of how much the Government have done and I assure her that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development will continue to pursue the issue of alleviation of the debt burden. I cannot promise time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but the issue is exactly the sort that is debated in Westminster Hall, so my hon. Friend may wish to pursue it there
Mr. Eric Forth: What are the Government afraid of? Why, having set about vandalising our constitution, destroying the upper Chamber and setting up a royal commission to make recommendations, are they refusing to allow or even contemplate a proper debate on the matter in this House? Are they stalling for time? Do they wish to impose a so-called temporary solution on the hapless people of this country for an indefinite period? Or are we going to have, for once, a principled approach from the Government, which will allow the House of Commons to debate the matter and then get on with providing a solution for our Parliament and legislature that will satisfy the people of this country?
Mrs. Beckett: That was very noisy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was here a couple of weeks ago, so he will know that the Government were prepared to have such a debate. We accepted legitimate representations—I do not complain about them at all—that it was better to have the debate on a day when fewer hon. Members were out communing with their constituents and we shall schedule such a debate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not notice that the debate was originally proposed for the day on which local elections were taking place. However, we accepted the reasonable view that it would be better to schedule the debate for another day, which we shall do.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Leader of the House announced the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill as private business for 7 pm next Monday. Traditionally, the House has a free vote on private Bills. What will be the position of the payroll vote?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend points out, quite correctly, that the Bill is private business and it is for individual hon. Members to determine how to vote.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Yesterday, the Audit Commission published a report on care charges for home care. It found wide, unacceptable variations in the charges levied by local authorities and revealed that one in three councils were charging a sum that drove pensioners below the poverty line. Will the Secretary of State for Health give us an early statement, setting out when the Government will take the necessary legislative powers to direct local authorities to change their charging policies so that they are fair and promote dignity and independence in old age?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have accepted that the system has an unacceptable scale of variation. We are grateful for the Audit Commission investigation, which gives us the facts, as opposed to anecdotal evidence. However, I understand that it suggests that Liberal Democrat
1016
councils are among those making high charges. The Government certainly intend to weigh carefully the Audit Commission report which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, only came out recently. We hope to make proposals in the summer in a White Paper that will respond to the report of the royal commission on long-term care.
Mr. John Cryer: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) about tomorrow's announcement by Ford, no one is in any doubt that Ford will announce the end of car production in Dagenham. That will be a blow of regional and national significance and a kick in the teeth for a loyal, skilled work force who, only four years ago, were told by Ford's world president that they were among the best in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that an urgent statement on Ford will be made if our worst fears are realised?
Mrs. Beckett: May I first say, as I did earlier, that I am aware of the importance attached to Ford's operations in that part of the south-east? My hon. Friend says that there are widespread reports of Ford's intention to make announcements over the next couple of days. He will know, as I do, that for 18 months to two years, Ford's chief executives have been making plain the need to restructure their operations across the whole of Europe. Indeed, substantial discussions have taken place over a long period. Of course, I accept that the matter is especially sensitive in my hon. Friend's part of the country. I cannot give any undertakings as to the precise form of any response, but I shall certainly take on board his expressed wish that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry keep the House informed. My hon. Friend will have noted that there is an Opposition half-day debate next Tuesday, which might provide a vehicle for discussion of the subject. None the less, I shall certainly draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Following the resounding success of the Conservative party in local elections last week, I am sure that the whole House is greatly interested in when we shall have a debate on the health of democratic participation in this country, the effect on turnout and other matters of various voting systems, and, not least, the question of protecting from widespread electoral fraud the postal ballot system in the event of its being extended significantly.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point. In the aftermath of the elections, we shall evaluate carefully the pilot schemes, although it is my understanding that most, including those involving postal voting, led to increased turnout. I am not aware of any evidence that there was increased fraud, but I am sure that that is an issue that people will raise. Although I am sure that the Conservatives were relieved to have hung on—albeit not especially substantially—to the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the by-election, they would be unwise to ignore both the turnout and the result in Romsey.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty review conference that is taking place in New York and concludes next week will have enormous implications for global security in terms of avoiding a new arms race?

1017
Does she also agree that it strengthens the argument for an early debate on the broad range of foreign policy, in which we can discuss issues of global security, as well as individual points of conflict?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point and I am grateful to him for, rightly, identifying the wide range and broad sweep of foreign affairs issues, which are a proper matter for discussion by the House. I shall certainly bear his remarks in mind.
Dr. Julian Lewis: How does the Leader of the House reconcile the answer she has just given her hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) with the fact that the most important debate of the year—the armed forces, defence and the world debate—was this year scheduled to coincide with local elections and the Romsey by-election, and last year scheduled to coincide with European elections? Is it not about time that the Government listened to representations of the all-party Select Committee on Defence, of which I am privileged to be a member, which asked for that important debate to be held on a date that allowed Members of Parliament to attend in significant numbers? Will she undertake that such cavalier treatment of the most important defence debate of the year will not occur three times in a row?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as a member of the Defence Committee, he will know that the Government try to accommodate the pressures on hon. Members—especially those who are members of Select Committees—their other concerns, their travel arrangements, and so on. He will also recognise that, although he regards the defence and the world debate as the most important defence debate of the year, we—quite rightly—have a fairly large number of defence debates to fit into the schedule each year. We always try to take account of the concerns of members of the Select Committee and other right hon. and hon. Members, but it is not always possible to balance them in a way that suits everyone. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that this year was the second time that the defence and the world debate coincided with local elections.
Shona McIsaac: Last week, I drew to my right hon. Friend's attention the issue of compensation for distant water trawlermen. A report is being prepared and I am told that it will be available shortly. My right hon. Friend assured me that she would raise with the appropriate Ministers my concerns about the fact that the case has been going on for some time. Has she done so? If she has not, may I point out that our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is now sitting at the end of the Treasury Bench? She can nab him on the way out; I have already done so today.
Mrs. Beckett: I assure my hon. Friend that I have indeed raised her concerns with the relevant Department. I am very mindful of her anxiety to get a response and the fact that she has raised those concerns continually for some time.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the number of roles that British forces might have to play in Sierra Leone, why, in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), did the Leader of the House take the view that the House of Commons could make no contribution to the Government's decision?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because if that was the impression that I conveyed, it was certainly not what I intended. I simply meant to say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who tends to raise issues in a rather negative style, that although I recognise the proper concern and anxiety of the House both for the welfare of British troops and for the role that they may play in Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I doubt that it will make a material difference to their individual safety at this precise moment whether we are able to discuss the issue in the immediate future or a little later on, when the position is a little clearer.
Of course I accept that it is absolutely right and proper for the House to keep these matters under review, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling me to set the record straight if there was any doubt about it.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware that while we are on our Whitsun recess we will pass the 10th anniversary of the election of the National League for Democracy in Burma. That democratically elected group has yet to take office, because of the murderous regime that has taken power. An all-party early-day motion will be tabled to commemorate the event, but I hope that an early date can be found to have a debate on the matter, because it is important that we send a very clear message to that regime.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that my hon. Friend was asking for a debate specifically on what is happening in that part of the world, but he will recognise that, from my point of view, that somewhat strengthens the argument for a general foreign affairs debate. Equally, I am sure that he has not overlooked the fact that we have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday. I am afraid that I do not recall what is on the Order Paper, but I am sure that he will find an opportunity to raise these issues then.
Mr. Graham Brady: I add my voice to the call by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for an early statement on mobile phones and their safety, which would give us an opportunity to clear up some of the allegations made in the Financial Times yesterday, that the report was selectively leaked in order to give the impression that mobile phones would get an entirely clean bill of health during the auction for the third generation licences, and that Ministers were deliberately kept in the dark until after the auction. It would also give the Government an opportunity to say whether the fact that they are the licensing authority for mobile phones might lead to their having some legal liability should serious medical harm be found at some date in the future.
Mrs. Beckett: I undertake to convey the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the relevant Department. I did not see the Financial Times article to which he refers, and I am always a little wary of articles alleging that there is a deep-laid plot. I know that it happens sometimes, but experience suggests to me that it is more often a cock-up than a conspiracy.
Mr. Ian Bruce: If the Leader of the House cannot find time for a debate on Sierra Leone in the coming week, can she ensure that we at least have a statement, and possibly a statement from the Ministry of Defence? I am sure that the House will want to know that HMS Ocean was about to go on exercise with the strike force south, with both NATO and French forces. It seems somewhat strange, considering the overstretch in our armed forces, that it is only British ships, the British Royal Marines and the British Fleet Air Arm that have gone to help, especially considering that all those other forces are sitting there waiting for an exercise and could immediately deploy to the area. When we are working with our allies in this way, we want to know why our allies are not supporting the action that we are taking.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is something of a compliment to the British armed forces that they are asked to participate, but it is sometimes a double-edged compliment. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Although, as I pointed out, it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next week, the hon. Gentleman is asking specifically about the defence implications. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do what he can to keep the House informed if there are developments.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the Liaison Committee report, which was described by my right hon. Friend earlier as weighty and far-reaching? It is only 23 pages long and was published two months ago, but it is indeed far-reaching, as it would fundamentally alter the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. She is aware that early-day motion 476, which I tabled, has attracted no fewer than 203 signatures.
[That this House warmly welcomes the first report of the Liaison Committee, published on 2nd March, which observes that the membership of select committees is effectively under the control of the Whips and that this has led on occasion to long delays in setting up committees at the start of a parliament and in replacing members thereafter and that members have been kept off committees because of their views; agrees that this is wrong in principle; and believes the implementation of the report's recommendations would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive to the positive benefit of both.]
I invite her to be a little more precise about when we can expect the Government's response to that hugely significant, unanimously agreed Select Committee report.
Mrs. Beckett: The report may be only 23 pages long, but any report that calls for substantial changes in the relationship not just between Government and Executive, as my hon. Friend rightly says, but between one hon. Member and another, as well as having substantial implications for the ordering of our debates and for the
1020
use of funds in the House, I regard as weighty, however short it is. I accept that it is serious. I am gratified that so many hon. Members have taken a close interest in the contents of the Liaison Committee report. I cannot tell my hon. Friend exactly when we will find time for a debate on the matter. As for when the Government hope to respond to it—soon.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is there any prospect of a debate on participation in the political process, given the worrying reports in this morning's papers that Labour party membership in the Prime Minister's constituency, Sedgefield, has fallen by half since the general election? Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity of such a debate to announce whether there will be an allocation of Short money for what the Deputy Prime Minister on Tuesday night called the real Opposition on the Benches behind him?
Mrs. Beckett: It should be a matter of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House that there is such a low level of participation and interest in the political process. With regard to levels of party membership, the words "motes" and "beams" come to mind. On the link that people make or do not make between what happens in the political process and what happens in their daily lives, I have long taken the view that it is a great weakness of our democracy that people do not more readily make that connection.
The hon. Gentleman will have observed that one of the things that the Government are endeavouring to do is to make sure that information about the steps that the Government are taking gets across more fully and in a more understandable form than in the past. I understand that the Opposition regard that as re-announcing, double counting, spinning and many other things, which I sometimes fear are designed to obscure from the British people the facts about the difference that a Labour Government are making to their lives.
Mr. James Gray: The exceptional medicines fund initiative announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) this morning would end the cruel practice of postcode lottery medicine, whereby beta interferon is denied to my constituents Julia Eckersley, Kate Sweetman and Sue Brierley. Will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the subject of postcode lottery funding and finding a way to end a practice that is condemned across the nation as cruel and heartless?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that is felt at differences that grew up under the previous Government, and which were to a large extent encouraged by the previous Government, in the way that the national health service operates in different parts of the country. I am glad that the Conservative party is thinking seriously about such matters.
However, I hope that anyone who looks closely at the Opposition's policy and takes on board the exceptional medicines fund will also take on board the fact that they are proposing what I would call a two-tier national health service, except that it is not a national health service at all. For common ailments, including particularly those experienced by the elderly, people would be driven into the private sector. The Conservative policy should be

1021
taken in the round, and I should be glad to think that people are taking it seriously, but I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in Government time, although the Opposition may like to find time for one, and we would welcome it.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On 2 May, in a statement about the demonstration in London, the Home Secretary said that English Heritage, which was responsible for the Cenotaph, had decided not to board it off. Shortly after that I visited the Cenotaph, and had discussions with a senior director of English Heritage.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me, and the rest of the House, in congratulating English Heritage and its contractors on the splendid and skilful way in which they have restored the Cenotaph, but, at best, a genuine misunderstanding has occurred. The agents of English Heritage left a meeting with the Metropolitan police on 20 April with the clear impression that the police had told them not to board up the Cenotaph. Alarmingly, during his statement the Home Secretary said:
I was not aware that those decisions were made.—[Official Report, 2 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 25.]
Given that the Cenotaph is a piece of architecture of sublime quality and historical significance to the British nation—indeed, it is a national icon—it is not good enough for the Home Secretary not to have known what was going on. I understand that discussions are in progress with the Met. Could the Home Secretary please come to the House, make a clear statement of what happened during the meetings leading up to his statement of 2 May and, more important, tell us what the policy is for the future, to ensure that a monument such as the Cenotaph is never again desecrated in such a manner?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course everyone in the House and, indeed, the country, condemns the defacing of the Cenotaph—there is no doubt about that—and of course careful consideration is being given to the incident. Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have made plain how seriously they take it.
I have no doubt that those who make the day-to-day operational decisions will consider how they reached their decision in this instance, and also consider its outcome. I doubt, however, that there is any need for the Home Secretary to make a further statement to the House about that particular inquest, or that there is any point in his doing so. I am certain that the lessons have been learned, and will be taken on board.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Would it be possible to have a debate on policing? Many Members on both sides of the House were very angry about the antics of the mindless thugs who vandalised the Cenotaph and Churchill's statue. May I say how satisfied I am that one of those vandals is now serving a prison sentence?
Many annual events, and one special celebration, will take place this summer. I understand that the anarchists aim to target those events as well. A debate on policing would allow us to support the police, thus ensuring that the families with children, and elderly people, who will
1022
turn out in their thousands for, in particular, that special celebratory event, will not have their special day tarnished.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about threats to future events—especially threats to peaceful celebrations by ordinary citizens—and of course I accept that it is right for the House to keep matters of policy under review. I think, however, that our best way of expressing support for the police is often to convey that general support and concern, and to encourage the police to take such matters seriously—as they do—while trying to avoid second-guessing the difficult decisions that must be made by those on the front line.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have an urgent statement or debate on the alarming admission this week by the Home Office that no fewer than 11 prisoners have been accidentally released into the community without having served the minimum sentence required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998? Is the right hon. Lady aware that those 11 include people convicted of robbery, drug dealing, drug trafficking and sex with a minor? The latter offender was sentenced to six months, and served only five weeks. Is this not a national scandal, which sends an appalling signal to worried law-abiding folk the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, no. It is not a national scandal; it is a very unfortunate administrative problem. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, recall that there has been a series of difficulties in that area of prison administration. Some people served longer than they were supposed to, and it would appear from the reports to which he drew attention that others have been released a little earlier than they should have been.
The Home Secretary is taking the issue seriously, and is engaged in discussions with the Prison Service to try to ensure that such incidents are not repeated. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention, but I do not think anyone can doubt that he is as determined as anyone else to ensure that offenders are where they properly should be.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her refusal to allow the House to debate foreign affairs in general and Sierra Leone in particular in the next fortnight? There is widespread anxiety about Sierra Leone. The Government have swamped the House with legislation and have thus created an imbalance. Parliament cannot debate subjects that the public expect us to discuss. It is ridiculous to pretend that some of the legislation that we shall debate in the next fortnight is more important than the actions of our troops in Sierra Leone.
Mrs. Beckett: First, let me clear up a misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman is right that I have not been able to announce time for a foreign affairs debate in the next two weeks, although I have taken on board the request for such a debate. He will know that I have announced an Opposition day in the next two weeks, although it is perfectly natural that he should seek a debate in Government time.

1023
The hon. Gentleman claimed that our programme was exceptionally heavy. During this morning's exchange, we have discussed the Liaison Committee report. The table in the report lists the number of Bills and the size of legislative programmes since 1979. If he examines it, he will realise that the Government's legislative programme this year is smaller than those under Governments that he supported.
I have sympathy for one of the hon. Gentleman's points. The Government have had to schedule and provide time for some matters in the legislative programme that are arguably minor and uncontroversial and have enjoyed the support of Conservative Members in the past. He knows that the Government had to do that because of Conservative Members' activities.

Orders of the Day

  Common Agricultural Policy
  [Relevant documents: European Union Document No. 9311/99, European Court of Auditors special report 2/99 on the effects of the CAP Reform in the cereals sector; the Seventh Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1998–99, Outcome of the CAP Reform Negotiations, HC 442, and the Government's response thereto, HC 825 of Session 1998–99]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  1.17 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6629/00, a Commission proposal on the prices for agricultural products (2000–01); supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interest of UK producers, consumers and tax-payers alike; and also takes note and approves of the action which the Government has taken in partnership with the industry to launch the new Action Plan for Farming to ensure that British agriculture is more sustainable, dynamic and diverse, and more consumer and market-orientated.
  We last debated agriculture on a Government motion in October. A great deal has happened in six months. Ambitious rural development plans have been devised, the Food Standards Agency has been established and considerable extra public aid has been given to farmers. Three important reviews of agricultural red tape have been completed and the Government have established a new direction for agriculture, supported by a 62-point action plan, which was launched during the Prime Minister's summit in March. The annual debate on common agricultural policy price-fixing arrangements is a good opportunity for the House to discuss the current position in agriculture and prospects for the future.
  This is the third year of depressed farm incomes. Times are hard for many whose livelihoods depend on agriculture. The causes are well known and have been much discussed. They include the legacy of BSE, the weakness of the euro relative to sterling, and low world commodity prices through over-supply. In 1998–99, there was record pig production in several member states. That led directly to the over-supply of our market. When that was combined with the economic crisis in Russia and the far east, where demand for pigmeat fell, the inevitable result was low market prices.
  The market for sheepskins has also recently collapsed as a result of the economic crisis in Russia and the far east. Skins used to add to the value of lamb. However, sheepskins, which were worth between £7 and £8 two years ago, are now worth only 50p.
  I am doing everything that I can to help farm businesses to adapt to new market demands and the evolution of agricultural and trade policy. Only by looking to the market will farming become prosperous, forward looking and sustainable.
  I shall set the Commission's price-fixing proposals in context by outlining the key points of last year's Agenda 2000 reforms. The outcome was a success for the United Kingdom, and the final deal represents an important step

  1025
  in moving the common agricultural policy in the right direction. The reforms will help agriculture to meet the challenges of further liberalisation of world trade. They provide for a significant shift from price support to more transparent direct payments and, for the first time, an integrated European Union rural development policy has been created.
  Agenda 2000 was a success for the United Kingdom and for Europe. European agricultural policy has started to move in a new direction. Member states have agreed to increase the market orientation of their agricultural economies. That is absolutely necessary for a viable European agri-food sector.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman clearly speaks with great sincerity, but is not the bitter truth that he, as the British Agriculture Minister, does not set the policy for British agriculture? That is done by the EU. Until this sovereign Parliament can reassert the proposition that British law should prevail when British law and interests conflict with those of Europe, there will be no long-term future for British agriculture—nor, indeed, for the British nation.
  Mr. Brown: I do not agree with the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman draws, although he is correct to say that the CAP—and the Council of Ministers, which sets that policy—is an over-arching policy instrument. Much of what I can and cannot do is shaped by the CAP. That is why the debate about reform is so important to those who, like me, believe that our future lies in Europe. The hon. Gentleman's perspective is very different; he looks to leaving the EU as a way forward. That is a fundamental difference between us, but if we start from my premise, it logically follows that we need a CAP that can work for European agriculture. That is why I am so keen on reform.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).
  Dr. Godman: Will applicant nations be able to sign up to the EU-wide rural development policy if their applications are successful? As my right hon. Friend knows, I have long argued that an unreformed CAP will harm the interests of countries such as Poland and other applicant nations.
  Mr. Brown: The agricultural aspect is crucial to our ambitions for enlargement. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that a reshaped CAP has an enormous role to play in facilitating the enlargement of the EU. As he knows, discussions between the Commission and the applicant countries continue on that and other issues even as we speak.
  Mr. Nicholls: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent my views. Will he accept that in no sense is it my position that we should simply withdraw from the EU? I want us to acknowledge the fact
  1026
  that if we cannot achieve a fundamental renegotiation of the terms of our engagement, we could still leave. We must recognise that we will be able to establish terms for our participation in Europe only if we make the point that Parliament must retain that ultimate ability. That is a very different point.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out his position so clearly. My objective is to remain in the EU to ensure that we are right at the heart of every negotiation of significance to this country—and, moreover, to add to the value of the EU rather than to stand slightly to one side and criticise it. That is a fundamental difference of approach.
  Having welcomed the creation of the second pillar of the CAP, it is also fair to observe that the pressures of EU enlargement and the next World Trade Organisation round will strengthen our case for further reform. As I have often told the House, I attach enormous importance to the second pillar—the rural development regulation—as an appropriate instrument to reform the CAP.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: With all the changes that are taking place, will there be any light at the end of the tunnel for the dairy sector in this country? As the Minister will know, I have many dairy farmers in my constituency. They are simply no longer making any money. Farmgate prices for milk have been tremendously depressed. What hope can he give dairy farmers that, in the short term, they will be able to turn a profit again?
  Mr. Brown: Only yesterday, I met a group of dairy farmers and their Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), to discuss precisely those issues. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the price that farmers are receiving for their milk—it is often below the cost of production—is the key precipitator of the crisis in the sector.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that, following the Prime Minister's summit on 30 March, every instrument that Government could use to help dairy farmers was proposed, including the lifting of the dairy hygiene charges, the drawdown of all agri-monetary compensation and the lifting of the weight limit on the over-30 months scheme. In addition—this gets to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question—there is the issue of relations within the supply chain. I use my office as far as it is proper for me to do so to persuade others further down the supply chain that they have a vested interest in the security of the chain and in the profitability of the producer suppliers of the product—the more so as we are dealing with a fresh product, and substantial investment is necessary at each stage in the chain.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will take some questions on that issue and then move on.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: On the dairy sector, my right hon. Friend mentioned the lifting of the cap on the over-30 months scheme. What is the latest position on that in negotiations with Brussels, and when will it be implemented?
  Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, it is a European Union instrument, although it is the UK taxpayer who will

  1027
  pay the extra costs of the proposed change. We are in discussions with the Commission, and I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least part of the problem is the intervention milk price equivalent. That is a floor price; it is not the price that the industry should be setting for the exchange of milk. If the whole industry realised that, including the supermarkets, it would make a significant difference to the price paid to individual farmers.
  Mr. Brown: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. As he knows, I have considerable sympathy with that view—but these are, after all, private sector arrangements, so there is a limit to what it is proper for me to do. I am doing everything that I can to help the dairy sector, and dairy farmers in particular.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The Minister referred to the food chain. Has he noted remarks in the agricultural press by representatives of some stages within the food chain that the supermarkets are intent on buying at the lowest possible price from primary producers, regardless of any farm assurance schemes, whether they be for milk or other products? That is a major problem that he has to overcome.
  Mr. Brown: In an industry such as the dairy industry, which is sophisticated and investment-intensive right the way through the supply chain, from producers to retailers, such a policy would be short term and foolish. Conditions for dairying in this country are ideal; I do not mean just climatic and agricultural conditions. The pattern of consumption in this country is different from that in the rest of the European Union. To allow the industry to be diminished for short-term considerations that will not endure would be very short-sighted.
  That is a point that I make to all my Department's partners. With the Food Standards Agency being set up as a separate agency, the industry focus in my Department is thrown into sharp relief, so I make the point to every partner that we have, all through the chain. I get a good reception for what I am saying, but I think that it would be dangerous for me to do more than that.
  I turn to the price-fixing proposals. The Agenda 2000 agreement set prices for a number of commodities on a multi-annual basis. For that reason, the Commission has made proposals this year for only modest changes in prices relating to cereals, silkworms, pigmeat and sheepmeat, rice and sugar.
  To remove the need for annual fixing, the Commission proposes to transfer the legislative basis on which the changes are made to the basic Council regulation. The UK Government acknowledge the common sense of all that and give the Commission our support. However, I am disappointed that there is no provision for a cut in sugar prices. Support for sugar is increasingly out of line with what is available for other arable crops. The case for a price cut is strong.
  On rural development, as well as the important move away from price support, Agenda 2000 introduced the rural development regulation which provides for the first time an integrated EU rural development policy. That is the way forward for the EU.
  1028
  The regulation gives us a significant opportunity to move away from traditional commodity support in favour of schemes that boost the broader rural economy, encourage farming practices that benefit the environment and help to modernise and restructure the farming industry.
  We have ambitious plans for implementing the regulation. Over the next seven years, the Government are proposing expenditure of more than £1.6 billion on the England rural development plan—an increase of 60 per cent. over the period. This will enable us to provide increasing support for agri-environment and farm woodland schemes, continued support for hill farming and support for energy crops, and to introduce a number of new schemes to help rural communities. Several of the new schemes will help the process of diversification and help increase competitiveness.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister was careful to refer to England. What is he proposing for Wales?
  Mr. Brown: There is a separate plan for Wales, which is discussed by the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Agriculture Minister. Responsibility for this matter is devolved, and the competent Minister is in the Welsh Assembly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close co-operation between my Department and the agriculture departments in the devolved territories.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked about the division of the moneys. It is complicated, but it was done proportionately. He is concerned mostly with hill farming, and the division of the money has been done in terms of the proportion of hill farms, rather than any other measurement. One might take the view that the settlement disproportionately favours Wales. I do not take that view; the settlement was fair, as the money was for hill farming.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Given that farmers will be expected to pay an increasing proportion of the money spent on rural development plans, will the Minister assure me that they are being involved in the design of the plans?
  Mr. Brown: Comprehensive discussions have taken place with farmers' leaders, and I did my best to consult individual farmers for a whole year as the plan was being devised. I accept that modulation—which I believe to be the best way forward—is controversial in some quarters. However, for every pound that is modulated in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is an extra pound from the Treasury. No part of the UK can lose out overall, and UK agriculture as a whole gains. Within that, some individual businesses will be beneficiaries and others will be losers. There is a redistributive effect, and I have paid careful attention to that in devising the England scheme—for which I am responsible—to make sure that there is no disproportionate redistribution between the English regions. The allocation within England has taken careful account of that.
  Several of the new schemes will help the process of diversification and increase competitiveness. We plan to reintroduce an expanded processing and marketing grants scheme. A new rural enterprise scheme will promote rural development on and off the farm. Government aid will

  1029
  support the development of energy crops. Vocational training for people in farming and forestry will broaden the skills base and support the delivery of the rural development plan's objectives.
  On 30 March, the Prime Minister, ministerial colleagues and I met farming and food industry leaders from throughout the UK to agree a strategy for the future of agriculture. The aim was to chart the way forward in the context of the current difficulties in the sector. An enormous amount of work across Government and in the private sector went into preparing for that summit. I am grateful to colleagues in other Departments, to their officials and to those in the devolved Administrations.
  The result is an action plan for farming, supported by more than £200 million in new Government expenditure. The action plan contains 62 measures to support the Government's long-term agriculture strategy. We are working hard to achieve the goals set out in the action plan, and we have already made good progress.
  We have notified the Commission of a number of new state aids and the agri-monetary aid that we intend to pay to the beef, sheep and dairy sectors. By the end of this year, the Government will have paid more than half a billion pounds in agri-monetary compensation since coming to office.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to ask for more.
  Mr. Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much was delivered in agri-monetary compensation under the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Brown: The facts speak for themselves: more than half a billion pounds under us; not a single penny under the previous Government.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Does not the intervention by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) show how little Labour Members understand? Did milk prices ever collapse under a Conservative Government, as they have recently? The Minister has given details of many interesting schemes, but will he tell us how much money the Government's actions will put into the pockets of dairy farmers—for whom milk prices are at their lowest level since the Domesday book was compiled?
  Mr. Brown: Going back to Domesday is probably going a bit far. It is also claiming quite a lot for the previous Government to take credit for the shifting terms of trade. If the hon. Gentleman is making the point—it is a perfectly fair point to make—that when sterling is weak, the terms of trade are advantageous to agriculture as a sector, he is correct. However, I should also point out that when the international markets were selling sterling, interest rates were increasing to 15 per cent. It is fair to point out that at the heart of the current difficulties in the dairy industry are, at least in part, difficulties with the terms of trade—the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro.
  1030
  The Government, however, are doing absolutely everything that we can with the instruments directly under our control—including agri-money, dairy hygiene charges and the weight limit on the over-30 months scheme—to give what help we immediately can to hard-pressed dairy farmers. That is a fair response to what I acknowledge is a difficult position. I have also said that I am using my office, as much as it is proper for me to do, to try to facilitate a solution to the difficulties within the supply chain.
  Mr. David Heath: The issue of agri-monetary compensation is important, and I am grateful to the Government for doing something about it, however belatedly and partially. What is the long-term solution on agri-monetary compensation? It is clear that the current arrangements will not last indefinitely, and that there will be pressure on other European Union member states, as members of the eurozone, to remove agrimonetary compensation. What is the British solution to that, and how can it be disentangled from the Fontainebleau arrangements, which are getting in the way of providing proper support for the British agriculture industry?
  Mr. Brown: The Fontainebleau arrangements are a complicating factor in all this. As I have said repeatedly to the House, when agri-monetary compensation is discretionary rather than mandatory, I am competing with other demands for public expenditure, effectively from the domestic Treasury, in order to make those payments. Of course there is a debate within Government about priorities.
  The future for the current agri-monetary regime is time-limited, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly said. The current scheme spans three years, with half the money being allocated for this year. That is the money that we are, in part, drawing down. I believe that next year, one third of the total sum will be allowed, with the final sixth coming in the following year. After that, the scheme comes to a conclusion. It is not a continuing arrangement, so the Government's policy of securing a stable exchange rate and bearing down on interest rates is important.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister gets away with a lot in debates because he is so generous in taking interventions—
  Mr. Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Paterson: But—there is a but—he has been disingenuous. He has failed dreadfully in his negotiations with the European Union and let down this country's dairy farmers. Why did Italy, Spain, Ireland and Greece get huge increases in milk quota last year, when our dairy farmers got nothing? In his negotiations on beef, why did he get nowhere on calf exports? A good bull calf in France makes £150, but a good bull calf in Shropshire either goes to the hunt kennels for nothing or at best makes £15. He has let down this country's dairy farmers, and he should not hide it with blather about a lot of little schemes. The real money is made from selling milk and calves to customers.
  Mr. Brown: Although it is possible to get Conservative Members to make such charges, it is difficult to find dairy

  1031
  farmers who do so—or at least, they do not do so when I meet them. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman has his own friends who will support him. I agree that the extra dairy quota for Ireland is difficult to justify, but the Irish Government were able to plead an agreement made in the early 1980s—to which the Conservative Government were a party—as the basis for their extra quota. I could not say that what the British Government did in the early 1980s was wrong, even if I thought that it was. All that I could do was negotiate for our country and get an equivalent increase in quota for Northern Ireland, based on the southern Ireland claim. That seemed to be a reasonable response. The idea that we were somehow let down in the negotiations is fallacious.
  In any event, the real issue is not extra dairy quota, but the future for dairy quotas. There are only two possible ways forward. One is to lock us into the regime, which would be wrong. The other is to argue for reform, even if we are currently arguing from a minority position. I stand by the proposition that we, together with the Governments of Italy, Sweden and Denmark, put forward for a permanent phasing out of dairy quota over six years. That would give the industry a period in which to depreciate its quota holdings and provide certainty about the longer-term outcome, resulting in a much more market-oriented industry, which is the only real way forward.
  When the quotas were introduced in the early 1980s, they were supposed to be a temporary response to a particular market difficulty. The market difficulty has come back, but the response is not helping. We need to think strategically. There is not much difference between the Government and the Opposition on the strategic question.
  Mr. James Paice rose—
  Mr. Brown: I want to move on and deal with the pig industry scheme, but I shall give way first.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to take him back to agri-monetary compensation, about which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked. The Minister talked about further tranches of existing money, but is he saying that the Government would not support any further agri- monetary compensation system to take over when the existing one runs out at the end of 2001?
  Mr. Brown: I have not said that, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that the circumstances will be pretty difficult, with 11 of the 15 member states in a single currency and three others preparing to go into it. He should think about the circumstances in which such a scheme would be negotiated. It is better to pursue our current policies to stabilise exchange rates so that currency variations impact less on agriculture.
  We are trying to support the pig industry and secure its long-term viability through the pig industry restructuring scheme. The issue is under discussion with the Commission, as well as with the industry and other interested parties. I know that the House will be interested in this, because right hon. and hon. Members have often raised the plight of the pig sector.
  The scheme is worth £26 million in the first of three years. It will have two main parts: an outgoers element is aimed at those who wish to leave pig farming; an ongoers
  1032
  element is for those who wish to remain in the pig industry and restructure their businesses. We hope to introduce the outgoers element of the scheme in July this year. It is my intention—if I can—to backdate the scheme to June 1998 so that we can provide some help for those who have already left the industry.
  We have also notified the Commission of our plans to provide funding for farmers to receive specialised business advice. I am pressing the commission for a rapid response to all the notifications that I have referred to so that we can act quickly to introduce the new measures.
  Legislation to remove dairy hygiene inspection charges in England, which I referred to yesterday, was put in place yesterday. Parallel action is in hand to remove the dairy hygiene inspection charge in Wales shortly, but that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. When that has happened, there will no longer be a charge for such inspections anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  My Department is working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that planning regulations, and their implementation, are flexible to local needs. It is essential that planning laws are compatible with opportunities for the farm business diversification that is already taking place, and that will be further facilitated under the new rural enterprise scheme. I accord great importance to that, because it would be discordant for me to favour diversification but for the planning rules to thwart it.
  Mr. John Townend: I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be saying rather more about the pig industry. Can he envisage a time in the foreseeable future when our pig industry will be able to compete on a level playing field with its competitors in Europe, with the same animal welfare and hygiene overheads as our competitors? There seems little likelihood, in the foreseeable future, of our competitors having the same costs imposed on them as we have imposed on our pig industry.
  Mr. Brown: Both the animal welfare imposts on the industry—the stall and tether bans and the meat and bonemeal restrictions—are unique to the United Kingdom. The legislation to put those measures in place was introduced under the previous Government. I make no complaint about that—
  Mr. Townend: I do.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does, and no doubt he did at the time. However, these matters are not as party political and partisan as he might imply. Better news is that the price in the marketplace is crawling back to what the industry regards as a break-even point. That does not get the industry out of all its difficulties, of course, because there will be residual debts from the prolonged recession in the sector. However, it offers some hope, and the measures that the Government are taking now and have taken, particularly on the marketing side, to help the industry through, with the support and encouragement of Members of Parliament from all sides of the House, have undoubtedly helped.
  Throughout the cycle, there have been points at which the domestic industry has been able to command a premium in the marketplace over the European Union

  1033
  price. I believe that we should focus our attention on that market-based solution and on what help we can legitimately give within the state aid rules. That is precisely what I am trying to do.
  That is not all that I am trying to do, however. The Government will continue to explore other ways in which we can develop the action plan to help the industry in the short term. I can announce today that the Inland Revenue is offering to join with the National Farmers Union to increase awareness of the assistance available to farming families through the working families tax credit. Many farmers, like many other hard-working families, stand to gain from the working families tax credit. It is important that those who are eligible claim their entitlements in full.
  Government action has been matched by initiatives from the farming and food industries. The Institute of Grocery Distribution is taking the lead on developing a code of practice for collaborative and constructive working in the food supply chain. That is having a tangible effect on my efforts to get the food chain joined up.
  The NFU has developed a new British farm standard, the "tractor mark". The mark has the support of major retailers and they have agreed to use it, to identify clearly to customers produce that meets the high standards of British farm assurance schemes.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is wide acknowledgement that the Government are doing everything that they can to promote high-quality British produce? Are we getting the same commitment from the food processing industry and supermarkets? My right hon. Friend seems to have had constructive discussions, but when will we see real action from those important sections of the industry?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully and well. The same point was made to me by farmers in his constituency when I met them recently. I try, as much as the boundaries of my office allow, to make these points to processors, retailers and distributors. The Ministry is the sponsoring Department for the entire supply chain, and I want the consequent responsibilities integrated within it, to the benefit of all.
  I shall now say something about the red-tape review. Farmers say to me time after time that the burden of regulation is one of the most difficult things with which they have to cope. They go on to bet that others do not have to cope with that burden in the same way. Other Agriculture Ministers all make the same point on behalf of their farmers. It seems that it is right to bear down on regulations that are a burden to farming. The three regulatory reviews launched towards the end of last year made 107 recommendations, of which the Government accepted 98 straight away. I know that it will be of interest throughout the House that one of the most far-reaching recommendations relates to the computerised administration of CAP schemes. The Government have accepted the working group's finding that computerised administration could offer a radically improved service for farmers and significant savings to the taxpayer.
  The Government are considering the issues and no final decisions have been made. I shall set out my four key objectives. First, I want to offer improved services to
  1034
  farmers, traders and other stakeholders. Secondly, I want to strengthen my Department's regional policy presence, which will mean building closer links with the Government regional offices. Thirdly, I want to ensure that the implementation of rural development policy has a strong regional focus. Fourthly, I want to make the best use of available technology in administering CAP schemes.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brown: Yes. I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency interest.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend has been extremely understanding and sympathetic. I know that he understands the worry in my area about the problem of farmers and information technology, especially in relation to completing forms—forms on which a farmer's entire income can depend. Can he assure me that we shall try to resolve the difficulty when there is no civil servant to give direct advice to the farmer at the point of use?
  Mr. Brown: Although we have accepted the principle, we have not yet agreed to a specific proposal. The matter is under active consideration. Before embarking on any change, I want to do two rather obvious things. First, I wish to ensure that the proposal has been as robustly tested as possible. Secondly, I want to ensure that we have given every consideration to my Department's regional interface with farmers, to which they attach so much importance and about which I continue to hear complimentary remarks from individual users of the regional service.
  Mr. Tim Collins: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the second of his four points—greater co-operation with the Government regional offices? Is that a code that means shutting down the existing MAFF regional offices and merging them into the overall Government system? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents find the service that they get from Carlisle extremely useful. The people at Carlisle understand Cumbria and can explain the problems to farmers in that area. If the service is transferred to Manchester, my constituents will not be remotely as happy, and they will be much worse served.
  Mr. Brown: I am not certain that that would be a good idea. The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It is perfectly possible to integrate my Department's policy-making responsibilities more closely with the work of other Government offices, particularly those for the regions, without physically moving every MAFF employee to—to use the hon. Gentleman's example—Manchester. That would be an expensive and unnecessary solution to the problem. The reason why the regional services centres are not located alongside other Government services in the regions is perfectly rational. They have a different, rurally based client group. There is a strong case for paying particular attention to that factor as we consider these matters.
  Dr. Godman: When my right hon. Friend discusses closer integration and regional offices, am I right to think that he is talking only about England? It is likely that

  1035
  the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive will be reinstituted on or about 22 May. If the Minister in Northern Ireland, who has a lot of catching up to do, seeks an early meeting with my right hon. Friend, will he accede to such a request? Does he intend to follow reinstitution of that Assembly by holding regular meetings with Ministers from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?
  Mr. Brown: I have regular formal meetings with Ministers from the devolved administrations, the last of which happened only a few days ago. A good working relationship exists among Ministers. When Brid Rodgers was Minister in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland, we developed a good working relationship, and relations between officials are excellent. I am involved in several issues of importance to Northern Ireland. Although the matters that we are discussing at the moment apply only to England, because they affect the regional offices, there is an Intervention Board dimension, which I discuss closely with devolved Ministers, who, like me, are stakeholders in that board.
  Mr. Paice: As others have said, the Minister is being extremely courteous and generous in giving way. May I pursue him on the point about the regional offices? His rhetoric of the last few minutes appears to support the importance of contact between his officials and farmers, particularly when, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, they produce for checking forms that relate to large subsidies. There is widespread concern about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the future of the offices. It is widely believed in the farming industry that the Minister plans to close some offices. Can he tell us what his response will be to the report, and how he will maintain the interface that he rightly values?
  Mr. Brown: I intend to maintain a regional interface with those who look to the Ministry, and to enhance our involvement in Government policy work at regional level. That is perfectly rational, not least because I set great store by the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. Rural development regulation schemes will clearly have a regional interface—it would be odd if they did not.
  I will not set out my conclusions today, for the simple reason that I have not come to any yet. I am considering what has been said to me—not the principles, because they seem sound, but their practical application. If we are to have change, we must ensure that it is measured and rational, and delivers clear benefits to public administration and to our client groups. Those are my objectives.
  I have received representations from the hon. Gentleman, but have also received representations from the right hon. Gentleman who has the Northallerton office in his constituency. Out of kindness to the hon. Gentleman, I should tell him that they were not the same representations, and he may wish to pause and have a word with the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): Does the Minister accept that there is widespread frustration and concern among farmers because when they return forms—particularly integrated administration and control system forms—under present MAFF regulations and systems
  1036
  they find it difficult to reach a satisfactory resolution when there is a dispute between them and the Ministry? Does he accept that the farming industry wants, needs and deserves an independent appeals system to deal with the continuing disputes between farmers and MAFF officials? Those disputes remain unresolved, and we need an independent system
  Mr. Brown: That was one of the ideas that came out of the review group; I am giving it active consideration. However, the case against it is that the parameters for independent decision making are not as wide as is commonly believed—because the rules are EU-wide and thus fairly rigid, so as to avoid the exercise of national discretion that could lead to a distortion in the working of the schemes. However, there is a case to be considered, and I am considering it.
  Agriculture is going through a deep recession. The Government acknowledge that. We have worked hard to help farmers through to better times. We have done much, but there is much more to do. Ultimately, profitability can be found only in the marketplace. Most farmers accept that—as do most hon. Members—although it sometimes seems that Opposition Front-Bench Members have not grasped the point. They tend to present every problem as though it came from Brussels—[Interruption.] I am sorry—every problem comes either from Brussels or from me—[Laughter.] From that response, I assume that Opposition Members take that as a fair summary.
  The Opposition have not learned much from the Conservative Government's petulant and futile "war" on Europe. They accused the European Commission of forcing farmers to grub up hedgerows. They claimed that the use of rams' horns in walking sticks and shepherds' crooks was under threat from Brussels bureaucrats. They warned that lamb chops were going to be outlawed, and that the beef-on-the-bone ban was to be reimposed. The unfortunate fact for the anti-Europeans on the Opposition Benches and elsewhere is that none of that has happened—nor, given the Government's constructive engagement with Europe, was it ever likely to happen.
  Conservative spokesmen have repeatedly tried to stir up scares about the safety of imported food. That comes from the party that presided over a succession of food scares, culminating in the national tragedy of BSE. Let me make it clear: the Labour Government will not hesitate to ban any food that is unsafe. The protection of the public comes first. However, we shall not start a Tory trade war with our European partners, thus jeopardising our £10 billion annual food exports and the jobs in the constituencies of almost every Member that depend upon them.
  It is truly ironic that the party that claims to care about rural Britain has not made a single constructive contribution to help British farmers through difficult times. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) suggested that we take unilateral action on food labelling. However, that would leave the UK open to legal challenge, with the taxpayer footing the bill for compensation.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests banning foreign imports. That would be a breach of our legal obligation to ensure the functioning of the single European market. In case hon. Members think that is merely a theoretical point, I remind the House that a previous Conservative

  1037
  Agriculture Minister cost British taxpayers £1.5 million following an unlawful ban on French turkey meat in 1981. It is not even a new idea—it is certainly not a good one. Tory plans for state aids to cover the costs of BSE borne by the pig sector would be ruled unlawful, and any money paid—plus interest—would have to be recovered from farmers.
  That is the case against the Conservative proposals. As for the agri-monetary aid promised by the Leader of the Opposition at the annual conference of the National Farmers Union on 2 February, that has been exceeded by the Government's most recent package of agri-monetary aid for dairy, beef and sheep farmers.
  The Government understand the problems of British farming, and are doing a lot to help. Over the past few months, I have set out a policy to help agriculture meet the challenges it faces. I have also provided short-term help to the hardest hit: greater market-orientation; a more rational CAP; expanded rural development measures; a joined-up food chain; and regulation that is proportionate to risk. Those are the policies that British farmers are asking for. Those are the policies that will bring much needed profitability back to the industry. I commend them to the House.
  2.5 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move, To leave out from "(2000–2001);" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the failure of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food either to secure meaningful CAP reform on behalf of consumers, taxpayers, farmers and the environment, or to defend Britain's interests in other EU negotiations; condemns the false claims made about the value to farmers of the Action Plan for Farmers; notes the dramatic and continuing fall in agricultural employment and farm incomes; and calls on the Government to address with urgency the crisis in Britain's countryside."
  I welcome the debate and I welcomed—at least until the last two minutes—the Minister's characteristically courteous approach. It is possible to admire the style of his speech without agreeing with all its contents. I thought that he lapsed a bit towards the end; he should change the special adviser who inserted the uncharacteristic and entirely inaccurate jibes.
  I wish to correct the Minister on a point of fact. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, spoke at the annual conference of the National Farmers Union, he suggested that all the agri-monetary compensation available for grazing livestock should be claimed. I do not believe that that has been done, so the Minister is wrong to say that he has done more than my right hon. Friend suggested at the conference. I shall return to the issue of agri-monetary compensation shortly.
  We have had several debates on agriculture in Opposition time in the past two years, but it is a rare event to get a whole day on the subject in Government time. In fact, the last half-day debate, which was held in October, was not, as the Minister suggested, held on a Government motion; it was a Liberal Democrat motion. There was no annual debate on common agricultural policy price fixing last year, so this is a valuable, if unusual, occasion.
  Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's speech descended into the disgracefully
  1038
  churlish statement that no constructive ideas came from Conservative Members? Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that I sent the Minister a letter on 15 December last year—I send him numerous letters—and sent a reminder on 18 February but his colleague, the Minister of State, replied on 26 April? The letter that I sent was from the managing director of Fullwood, the third largest manufacturer of milking equipment in the world, who deserved an early and reasoned reply to some sensible and practical suggestions on how to improve the supply industry to the dairy industry
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has obviously been treated with disgraceful discourtesy by the Minister, and, more important, so has the senior industry figure whose suggestion he relayed. When he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will point out that several of the proposals about which the Government have boasted today and on recent occasions were contained in the policy document published by the Opposition in April 1999. Far from our not making constructive suggestions, some of those that we have made have happily been picked up. I hope that, by the end of the debate, more of them will be adopted by the Government.
  The debate is urgently needed. A year ago the Heads of Government of European Union member states produced an utterly feeble package of CAP reforms. As a result of their failure, the process of European Union enlargement may now be impeded. Meanwhile, the crisis that is destroying Britain's farmers and damaging the British countryside worsens steadily month by month. Farm incomes have fallen by three quarters since the Labour Government came to power and thousands of jobs have been lost.
  A year ago, the Agenda 2000 talks offered a chance of fundamental CAP reform—a chance that, regrettably, was thrown away. In its seventh report entitled "Outcome of the CAP Reform Negotiations", the Select Committee on Agriculture said that
  we can only regret the failure of the Council of Ministers to face up to the need for radical reform of the CAP.
  Judging by what the Minister said today, not a great deal is likely to change. The Select Committee added:
  We ourselves are deeply dismayed that even the modest hopes of the Commission could not be brought into fruition. This does not augur well for future discussions on CAP reform which are made all the more inevitable by the failure of certain member states to address the realities of the pressures for liberalisation. This is a had deal.
  The consequences of that bad deal will be felt by existing EU members and more widely. Prospects for the six applicant countries—Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus—are threatened by European Union Ministers' failure to grasp the nettle. Admitting those countries would add substantially to the current cost of the CAP budget. Who will bear that burden? It is simply not acceptable that it should fall entirely on existing contributors to the EU budget.
  Quite apart from the question of enlargement, CAP reform is needed for other reasons. The CAP is failing consumers, taxpayers and farmers. Despite the horrendous cost of its huge spending which, according to the documents that we are considering, is now about £25 billion a year, the income of British farmers is at its lowest in real terms since before the war.

  1039
  Taxpayers, too, have grounds for complaint. Despite constant promises, the cost of the CAP never seems to fall. Too much money is wasted, and there is the scandal of subsidies for tobacco farmers, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Any policy that pays people to produce a product which is considered so dangerous to human health that it cannot be advertised legally and whose quality is so low that much of the output has to be dumped in the developing world, ought to be condemned as immoral, incompetent and ridiculous. However, such a policy has been part of the CAP for many years.
  Consumers, too, have been let down by the CAP. Food sold in EU countries is artificially expensive. Indeed, the total cost to a typical British family of four of higher food prices and taxpayers' expenditure on the CAP is estimated to be £12 to £15 a week. That does not include an extra £1 a week, which is the cost of expenditure on national agricultural policies.
  The environment suffers because of the CAP. Even after last year's reforms, English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation, concluded:
  The Agenda 2000 agreement on CAP reform was very disappointing for the environment. The Commission's original proposals did not go far enough for the environment and the final agreement retreated significantly. The overall effect will he that wildlife will continue to be seriously damaged by the intensive farming practices that the CAP supports.
  Mr. Nick Brown: That quote is fair. However, along with other environmental groups, English Nature revised its views following our December announcement on how we intend to make use of the second pillar of the agricultural policy, which is an important component of our debate.
  Mr. Yeo: I welcome the rural development regulation, and shall deal with it in a moment. However, it remains true that many practices that the CAP continues to encourage damage the environment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to the dairy sector, an examination of which illustrates just how bad a deal the Government got for Britain last year. At the Heads of Government summit in Berlin last March, the Prime Minister accepted a proposal to freeze mainland Britain's milk quota for six years, but agreed to allow Ireland, a country which is self-sufficient in dairy produce four times over, an immediate increase in its quota.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that he wants quotas to be phased out—indeed, there is nothing between the Government and the Opposition on that—but, given that that process will take many years, it is disgraceful that the Government agreed to a proposal that will give our nearest neighbour a chance to go on undercutting our farmers. That decision dealt a severe, disastrous blow to hard-pressed dairy farmers, who have been denied a chance to supply the demands of the home market, despite having some of the best dairy-producing land in the EU.
  As the Minister acknowledged, dairy farmers are still struggling with a farmgate price for milk that leaves many of them trading at a loss. Those are precisely the circumstances in which any responsible Government would have resisted the Berlin proposal. While still on the subject of dairy farming, I reiterate Conservative Members' regret that the Government insisted last
  1040
  summer on breaking up Milk Marque, the largest dairy producers' co-operative in the country. That policy weakened the position of the primary producer and was followed for no reason but dogma.
  Mr. Brown: Let us be clear about this. I have no direct ministerial responsibility for the matter, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Opposition believe that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should set aside the views of the competition authorities?
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister should have insisted that the recommendation was made in the light of up-to-date information. The report on which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry based his wrong decision was founded on hopelessly outdated information about the state of the market and Milk Marque's share in it. If the Minister had been doing his job, he would have made sure that proper representations were made to the Department of Trade and Industry, drawing attention to shortcomings in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Milk Marque was a friend of small producers, who continue to be concerned about who will defend their interests in the supply market?
  Mr. Yeo: I entirely agree, which brings me to my final point on the matter. The Minister suggested that dairy farmers were not concerned about such issues, so I would welcome the opportunity to introduce him to some small dairy farmers who are profoundly concerned about them. To be fair to the Minister, he has tried to get around the country and meet farmers. Having done so and listened to many of them, it is astonishing that he should now claim that dairy farmers are not anxious about the matter.
  Mr. Nick Brown: I have not said that dairy farmers are not concerned. They tend to be not as abusive to me as members of the Conservative Front Bench.
  Mr. Yeo: It is not abusive to point out that small dairy farmers have been directly disadvantaged by the decision of the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister may not welcome that, although I am glad that he has backtracked on comments that he made about half an hour ago. Nevertheless, many small dairy farmers will read our exchanges with dismay.
  Dr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Gentleman said that Milk Marque was a friend of small producers. However, if it was, it was not nearly as good a friend to those people as the Milk Marketing Board. Does he not remember that a Labour Government negotiated arrangements to ensure that the board continued and that a Conservative Government abolished it in the face of Labour opposition?
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. However, once again, we see the tendency of Labour Ministers and Back Benchers to fight again over matters that were concluded years ago. Conservative Members are anxious to do what they can to ensure that dairy farmers' prospects are improved in 2000, and put right some of the damage done in the past few months.
  Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is tragic that the Minister does not understand that dairy

  1041
  processing in Europe is twice as efficient as it is here because companies such as MD, Parmalat and Arla are successful dairy co-operatives that have gone on to processing? Smashing up Milk Marque has set back the prospects of British co-operatives going into processing by about five years.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right. Impeding the process of vertical integration in that industry is not in the interests of farmers, processors or, indeed, consumers.
  It is common ground that fundamental and far-reaching reform of the CAP is necessary to prepare for EU enlargement. Even if it were not, World Trade Organisation negotiations will, no doubt, force further reforms.
  Farming has to move closer to the marketplace, even though it cannot go all the way as long as the United States continues to bail out its farmers with huge amounts of taxpayers' dollars. Europe cannot sensibly operate on a completely free-market basis while the world's richest country declines to do so. It is also common ground that support in future will not be confined to production-related payments. In that respect, we endorse the principle of the rural development regulation.
  CAP reform will also provide an opportunity to examine whether some decisions currently taken at EU level would be better taken by the Governments of individual member states. The sole purpose of any change must be to make the policy work better in the interests of consumers, taxpayers, farmers and the environment.
  Changes are needed, not only in the practical policies of the CAP, but in the culture and philosophy within which those policies are implemented. Too often, whether it takes place in Brussels, Whitehall or even some regional office, the interpretation of the rules is hostile to farmers and others working in the countryside.
  If British farmers deserve anything, it is a chance to show what they can do to compete on more equal terms with others, at home and abroad, both inside and outside the EU. Nobody denies the need for regulation, but farmers and other small businesses in rural areas should be able to expect the regulations to be applied in a common sense manner.
  The Government's motion and our amendment to it are not limited to the CAP. The Minister spoke at some length about the action plan for farming—a plan which, it is claimed on its front page,
  will help chart a way out of the current crisis.
  After the Downing street summit of 30 March, the Government claimed that their package of measures was worth £200 million, but today is Parliament's first chance to examine that package; alas, the claims have been exposed as false. Far from representing £200 million of extra cash, the element of agri-monetary compensation shows a cut of £110 million compared with last year's figure.
  Mr. Nick Brown: That is absurd. As I explained to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the arrangements for agri-money are degressive. The fact that the Government do not take up the full sum does not mean that a cut has been made.
  Mr. Yeo: In April the Minister gave me a written answer on the subject. He made it clear that in 1999,
  1042
  £264 million was available; and that in 2000, £154 million will be available. By my reckoning, those figures reveal a cut of £110 million.
  Let me set out the record of the Conservative Government on agri-monetary compensation, because there have already in the debate been some astonishingly ignorant and misleading exchanges on that subject. Agri-monetary compensation in its current form was first available only four months before the 1997 general election, when farm incomes were four times higher than they are now and the pound was valued at 20 per cent. less than it is now. Yet the Minister's answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) appeared to imply that the Conservative Government were at fault in not claiming agri-monetary compensation in those circumstances. Can farmers take that to mean that Labour will continue to seek sources of extra support for Britain's farmers even if farmers' incomes quadruple, to their pre-election levels, or if the euro rises to a value equivalent to that of the deutschmark in early 1997?
  Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House whether the last Conservative Government supported or opposed the introduction of the agrimonetary regime? Did they commit themselves to making payments under that regime, or did they say that they would not make such payments.
  Mr. Yeo: The last Conservative Government made their agriculture policy in the light of the needs at the time of farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment. I have absolutely no doubt that, had the Conservatives remained in office, farm incomes would not have collapsed as they have done; if they had, I am sure that we would have sought all available help for farmers under the agri-monetary scheme.
  The agri-monetary element of the scheme accounts for more than one third of the package's total value; that element has declined. Let me give an example of one of the smaller elements. When, on 17 April, the Minister finally answered my written question about the details of the package—four days after a junior Minister had wrongly assured the House that the information that we sought on behalf of farmers had already been published—the answer revealed that, of the £200 million of cash help trumpeted by the Government, £4.5 million came in the form of a commitment not to raise meat hygiene inspection charges by more than the rate of inflation.
  Even by the disgraceful standards of new Labour, which has debased the currency of political debate and enabled Ministers to assure the public that taxes are going down when they are actually rising, that is a pretty remarkable distortion of the facts. If a promise not to imposes increases in the burdens on agriculture by an amount greater than the rate of inflation constitutes cash help, who knows what further horrors the Government have in store?
  Mr. Brown: That is a semantic point and this is not the first time that we have heard it; similar points were raised in response to the September package on the question of specified risk material costs, which the Government carried rather than passing them to the industry, and on the question of the cattle charges. The fact is that costs have to be covered, either by the

  1043
  industry or by the taxpayer. If the taxpayer is to cover the costs, that will cost money—new money that was not previously budgeted; money that I have to argue for alongside competing bids for public expenditure. Therefore, the money is new money because it is money spent to an agricultural purpose that was not going to be spent previously.
  Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman appears to expect to be thanked if he walks down the street and does not rob the bank. From his remarks, we can take it that the Government were planning to raise those charges by a rate greater than inflation; but, having managed to take control of the management of those operations, the Minister was able to say that charges would increase only by the rate of inflation. Such Orwellian manipulation of language is a disgrace to the Government and gives rise to false hope in farmers' hearts.
  As the Minister says, our charges have been laid previously. Last September, a package was announced and the Minister claimed that it was worth £500 million. Yet, only a few weeks later, critics were suggesting that it was worth not £500 million but £1 million. In its report, "The current crisis in the livestock industry", published in December, the Agriculture Committee stated:
  we also have sympathy with the farmers who were led by the headline figure to expect extra money in their pocket, rather than a notional decrease in the amount that would be taken from them.
  The Minister's comments this afternoon demonstrate that he learned nothing from that experience. In the same report, the Committee stated:
  the Minister should take care not to give false hope to farmers whose first news of help packages is a limited media story.
  False hope is exactly what the Minister gave rise to again in March this year.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must not distort the Agriculture Committee's comments. It made those points in respect of the way in which the announcement was reported, but was careful not to do so in respect of the announcement itself. That announcement was made in September, when the House was not sitting, in response to what the Government believed, and I continue to believe, were urgent pressures. We set out specifically, category by category, each expenditure head. The Committee had sight of the statement made at that time, as did the hon. Gentleman. I defy anyone to describe the September statement as misleading: it was explicitly stated that £150 million of the package was new money, the rest being composed of two elements, agri-monetary payments previously announced—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The Minister is lengthening his interventions—
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my responsibility to ensure that interventions are of a reasonable length. Many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Yeo: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The fact is that I read out precisely what the Select Committee said in its report about the September package. The source of information on which press reports are
  1044
  based when these announcements are made is exclusively the Government. In the case of the announcement of 30 March, the reports could not be amplified for 17 days, because Ministers were unable or unwilling to answer detailed written questions tabled by Members of Parliament. If there is any mistaken interpretation, we know who is responsible for putting the spin on the original statement. In their increasingly desperate search for a good headline, there is no level to which new Labour will not stoop, no statistic that it will not distort, no fact that it will not manipulate.
  Last year, £264 million of agri-monetary compensation was available. This year, it is down to £110 million, despite the continuing weakness of the euro and the fact that farm incomes are under intense pressure.
  The Minister touched on the measures for the pig sector. Pig farmers deserve more details, and I hope that we will not have to wait very much longer for a clear statement of how much of the promised £26 million will be paid to outgoers and how much to ongoers. I hope that the conditions under which the ongoers will receive the money will also be made clear and that we will be told whether the support is likely to be continued in subsequent years.
  After two years in which the British sow herd has declined substantially, do the Government think that they have done enough to ensure the survival of what remains of our pig farming industry? Does the Minister accept the view of the chairman of the National Pig Association, who wrote to me on 13 April:
  £26 million falls far short of what the industry needs even to recover its debt position far less compensate for the ongoing c. 8p/kg cost disadvantage from BSE-related costs that our producers currently face…?
  Another major component in the action plan is the over-30-months scheme weight limit. There seemed to be some confusion in the Minister's mind when the matter was debated before. The action plan says on page 4 that the Government will
  seek from the Commission an increase in the maximum weight per animal on which compensation is payable
  but at Agriculture questions the Minister told the House:
  the Government's proposal is to lift the limit…—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 491.]
  I hope that he will soon be able to clarify which of those statements is correct.
  Mr. Brown: The statement made at oral questions is correct: we propose to lift the limit—to abolish it.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful for that clarification. That is an amendment to the written statement that accompanied the action plan, but it is none the less a change in the right direction.
  I hope that the Minister will soon be able to tell the House and, more particularly, the industry, when he expects to receive approval for the proposal. He spoke about cutting red tape, and we welcome the efforts that have been made by the various review bodies, but we remain concerned about the tangible achievements that have been recorded so far.
  The Minister was involved in some exchanges about the future of the Ministry's regional service centres. A big stretch of the imagination is required to describe

  1045
  the proposal to close them down as greater co-operation with the Government's regional offices. I want to place on record farmers' concern—well-founded, I believe—about the possible loss of the opportunity that they have to visit their regional service centre in person to discuss the details of the rather complicated IACS—integrated administration and control system—claims. Many farmers are not yet very experienced in the use of electronic communications, and to force them all at an early date to make claims via computer will, I believe, cause a great deal of additional stress in the industry.
  We remain concerned about the damage that bureaucratic intervention can cause. The recent enforced closure of the Meade Webber slaughterhouse in Herefordshire is yet another example. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will touch on that later.
  Whatever the Government's rhetoric about cutting burdens on business, their actions too often belie their words. The imposition of the climate change levy, even in the amended form announced in the Budget, will hit the horticulture sector. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is still causing great anxiety and potential problems in the countryside. The threats are not confined to the United Kingdom. The European waste incineration directive is another substantial burden waiting to fall on the industry.
  The acid test is whether the Labour Government are on the side of Britain's farmers and consumers and whether they believe in the future of agriculture and the countryside.
  Mr. David Heath: I am a little surprised that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Minister has mentioned the peculiarly precarious position of tenant farmers and the overwhelming need for a retirement package to enable people to leave the industry with dignity.
  Mr. Yeo: I am aware of the fact that the Liberal Democrat amendment refers specifically to the retirement package. I have omitted to mention it only in the interests of time, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will deal with it in his winding-up speech.
  Last year, Labour sold Britain's dairy farmers down the river on the issue of milk quotas. In the summer, the Minister let down pig farmers. He said:
  I have on my desk draft letters waiting to go out to the major public authorities…urging them to source products of the highest welfare and animal hygiene standards…—[Official Report,1 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 422.]
  Four months later, at the end of the summer recess, under questioning from me on 20 October, it emerged that those letters had never been sent out. The Minister was happy to imply that he was trying to boost public sector support for British farmers, but in practice he did so only when persistently chivvied by the Opposition. It is no surprise that in Wales sheep farmers are now banning the Ministry of Defence from conducting exercises on their land.
  In the autumn, Britain was again humiliated when France refused to allow British beef to be exported. As that crisis deepened, the Minister refused even to talk to his French counterpart, saying that there would be no point in doing so. At the Anglo-French summit at the end
  1046
  of November, the issue was not even raised. Even in the past few weeks, when the European Commission itself has, not for the first time, exposed dangerous flaws in French farming practices, and when the long-held suspicion that BSE is much more widespread in France than was previously admitted have been confirmed, he still refuses to consider any action.
  Mr. Nick Brown: That is no longer my ministerial responsibility. With the setting up of the Food Standards Agency, responsibility passes to the Secretary of State for Health. Even if the hon. Gentleman was on to a good point—which he is not—he would be making it to the wrong Minister.
  Mr. Yeo: I am sure that British farmers will have noted the Minister's response: that it is not a matter of concern to the British Agriculture Minister if the illegal practices of farmers in other countries, whose businesses compete directly with those of farmers in Britain, continue unchecked. His only answer is, "Oh, it's not my responsibility."
  Had a British farmer been found feeding his or her livestock with illegal materials, as French ones were last autumn—when the Minister was responsible—does anyone believe that the Minister would have told Parliament that nothing could or should be done? Of course not. A French farmer behaving in that way can rely on good old Labour Ministers. Never mind the damage to Britain's farmers or the risks to British consumers, under this Labour Government there is not a word of criticism, a whisper of complaint or a moment of argument over any action or proposal, however damaging, from a foreign Government or a European institution.
  Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I have given way too often.
  The Government's reluctance to act to reduce the flow of substandard food into Britain is now notorious. Only yesterday, the National Farmers Union revealed a 40 per cent. rise in poultry imports from Thailand, a country where practices are known, in some cases, to fall far below the standards that are required here for health reasons.
  Agriculture and the countryside, and consumers, now need a Minister and a Government who are prepared to defend their cause: to defend it in Whitehall, when more taxes and red tape are being imposed on them; against the Treasury, when support levels are being cut; and in Europe, when they are under attack from other Governments who recognise the importance of rural communities.
  In 50 minutes today, the Minister gave no clue about Labour's long—term view of agriculture. It is no wonder that the industry is suffering from a shortage of young people coming into it. The Liberal Democrat amendment refers to the retirement scheme, and we are sympathetic to those concerns, with which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will deal. However, much more than a retirement scheme is needed to save British agriculture. It needs a Government committed to the industry's survival, who have a vision of the countryside as something more than a giant theme park—a rural version of the millennium dome.

  1047
  The Conservative party believes in a living and working countryside, where a prosperous agricultural industry is the foundation of a thriving rural economy; where viable and enlightened farmers are in the front line of looking after the rural environment and have the task of producing high-quality food to meet a substantial proportion of the needs of British consumers; and where rural communities can feel hope, not despair. I commend our amendment to the House.
  2.41 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I apologise for missing the almost certainly excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister—I regret that deeply—and a significant part of the contribution of the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), which I regret rather less.
  The debate gives us a further opportunity to discuss the present and future of British agriculture. At one stage last year, we had more opportunities to discuss the topic than any other matter before Parliament, with debates almost weekly. As I participated in many of those, I regret that many hon. Members will have to put up with hearing similar views to those that I expressed then, with a small amount, regrettably, of "I told you so" and references to recommendations that I made previously.
  I begin by outlining my credentials for speaking on the subject. Within South Derbyshire district, which includes three quarters of my constituency in population terms and far more than that in area, agriculture employs more than 5 per cent. of the work force, on the latest figures. It remains a major contributor to my local economy and to the shared environment of the citizens whom I am proud to serve.
  The district contains most forms of agriculture. I have the pleasure of being able to touch on almost any aspect that anyone could raise on an agricultural topic—sheep, dairy, beef, horticulture, poultry, pigs and arable farming all exist, with varying degrees of health, in my area. The area's performance accurately mirrors what has happened in the broader agriculture sector in the past three years.
  All sectors have struggled, particularly in the past two years. In the first year, there were some exceptions. The same situation has been reported elsewhere. Most of us will have received the statistics on farm incomes. I would not claim that my area is atypical; that has been broadly my experience as well.
  I regularly visit farms and meet farmers. In some areas, perhaps one half of the farms have been sold to neighbours and transferred on to become larger units. It is an attractive area, near Derby, and the farm buildings are regularly redeveloped for housing purposes. There are examples of local enterprise in facing the current problems. A successful golf course has been established on farm land near Derby in my constituency. That activity earns a good deal more money than the farming activity that preceded it. There is an extremely successful cleansing and packaging operation focused on root crops—
  Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not mean to interrupt the travelogue of Derbyshire, which is charming and entertaining, and I acknowledge, as ever, the hon. Gentleman's commitment to agriculture and his
  1048
  measured way of dealing with the topic. He speaks of having a variety of agriculture in his constituency. Are his arable farmers as disappointed as mine are in Lincolnshire that, in all the packages that the Minister mentioned today and introduced in the House previously, there has been almost no help for hard-pressed arable farmers, including tenant farmers, such as those who were mentioned earlier?
  Mr. Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Because of the mixed nature of the farming that predominates in my area, there are few farms where arable fanning is the dominant type. Farmers will usually have a certain amount of barley, for example, as part of their farm's activity, but the arable sector would not be the major goal of their operation. I have therefore been less exposed to comments on that than the hon. Gentleman.
  I shall continue. There is a highly successful washing and packaging operation in my area, based originally on a mushroom farm. That is still there, but the person involved has invested successfully in an operation that takes potatoes and other root crops from neighbouring farms and washes them, cuts them precisely and packs them neatly for the catering trade. He has established an extremely successful business around that. He is a successful entrepreneur from a farming family and is still a member of the National Farmers Union. My only regret is that he is about to move out of my constituency because of the need to expand his activities.
  That example demonstrates some of the successes that there have been. Another is added-value investment in the poultry sector. There is one large poultry operator in my area, and a neighbouring plant produces added-value product for the supermarket trade. There are indications of diversification, development and added value in farming units in my area, but many farmers have simply struggled through. I would not pretend otherwise.
  We have heard reference to tenant farmers, and I shall not hold back on that, as there are a number of tenant farmers in my area. Farmers have few options if they do not have a property asset, which, as I said, is worth a reasonable amount in South Derbyshire, because the area has good communication links and the planning authority has tended to be broadly supportive of changes in use—although there have been some exceptions, about which I would argue.
  Farmers who do not have a property asset are left with their stock, which is worth painfully little. There are some encouraging signs. Others will have touched on the improvement in the price of pigs. There is only one pig operator in my area, and that improvement will allow him at least to break even. That is also true of the sheep sector, where there has recently been an improvement in prices and some prospect of recovery. However, many tenant farmers are forced to rely on their stock, which, in some cases, they bought for significantly more than they can raise from it now, and there is no exit strategy that they can use.
  There is, none the less, much to commend in what the Government have attempted to do. The rural development plan offered the prospect of expansion of some successful schemes, such as the countryside stewardship scheme, and woodland and organics support. Welcome initiatives have been introduced for energy crops, and some much-missed supports, particularly for marketing, have been

  1049
  reintroduced. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that those were scrapped under the previous Government, not the present one. Since then, the farmers whom I represent have called for the reinstatement of such schemes. There are welcome new initiatives, existing initiatives have been extended, and initiatives that had gone have been reintroduced.
  Genuinely new Government money is being offered to match cash modulated from support payments and existing European Union funds. The total value of the schemes is £1.6 billion over the next seven years, and the trend is rising. I shall say more about that later, but let me say now—this is merely a comment, not a criticism—that, although £1.6 billion is a substantial sum, it is a small amount in the context of all the support that will be given to agriculture over the period. The Minister seems to assent to what I have said, and I do not think he interpreted it as a criticism. It is, after all, merely a statement of fact.
  We have made a good start if our aim is to develop a strategy focused on encouraging diversification, to improve the business skills of the farming community—which is clearly linked to the first objective—to enhance our environment, and to make the farm sector less dependent on subsidies for the driving of its main business activities. That last aim is as critical as any. As I have said, it is a good start, but it is only a start. Over a period, we must weight the balance of the budget much more in favour of measures such as those I have mentioned, and away from simple production support.
  I have reservations about the package, some of which I have shared with Ministers and others. I shall now share them with you. [Interruption.] I mean that I shall share them both with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the rest of the House.[Laughter.] We should not discuss the subject so lightly. Perhaps it is familiarity with my speaking on such topics that produces this reaction.
  The money available is heavily loaded towards the latter end of the seven-year period, which is regrettable. I have vigorously, even repetitively, asked for help for modernisation in earlier debates, and I am delighted that the Government now espouse my view; but that help is needed now, on a rather greater scale than will be possible in 2000–01 or, indeed, in the following two or three years.
  We have already seen, in the organic sector, how the offer of existing small-scale reform money is rapidly oversubscribed. I willingly accept that there are strong arguments for balancing expenditure of this kind against market expectations, and that flooding the available marketplace for support for organic conversion with money is likely to lead to the potential impoverishment of organic farmers. Like, I am sure, many Members who represent farming communities, I already advise those considering organic conversion not to take that step on the basis of the premium prices currently available in the marketplace: they should not found their business plans on those expectations. A substantial additional production base is already emerging to supply the marketplace, which must logically affect the prices that can be commanded for organic produce, even in a rising market. That is simply prudent advice.
  I well understand why funds of this kind need to be released progressively over a period, rather than in one mad rush at the start; but that, arguably, cannot be applied
  1050
  to some of the other key schemes in the package. I am thinking particularly of training, marketing, and investment in processing and co-operative activity for development of the new farm-based enterprises. I shall say more about that later, in a local context.
  Mr. Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that farmers in Wales were keen to become involved in organic farming? Unfortunately, the project was massively oversubscribed, and there was not enough money to go round. As a result, farmers are being a bit more cautious.
  Mr. Todd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Many farmers, including some in my area, have expressed interest in organics. The typical south Derbyshire farmer is canny and cautious and does not necessarily think that today's fashion is tomorrow's marketplace, so farmers in that area may not have leapt on the idea as keenly as some; but there are prospects. Those who are investing need sound business advice on the appropriateness of their decision.
  My point is that a project involving the provision of money for the purpose of achieving a particular goal was immediately oversubscribed—and I should be very surprised if the same did not happen during the current financial year.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have sponsored a Bill setting targets for organic food production. He will also know that 70 per cent. of organic products in supermarkets are imported. I wonder if he also knows that the Prime Minister has committed himself to trebling the amount of agricultural land involved in organic production by 2006, and that there is no money to back up that commitment.
  Mr. Todd: I accept all that the hon. Gentleman says, but freely admit that I subscribed neither to his Bill nor to the early-day motions that preceded it. Those who know me—members of the Select Committee, for instance—are aware that my view on such matters is firmly market-based. I regard approaches that set targets, at Government level, for the conversion of agricultural land to organic status as dangerously dirigiste—almost like the Soviet approach, suggesting that particular areas should be converted to organic status regardless of what the marketplace may want. I sense—as, regrettably, I often do—a degree of assent to some of my market-led views on the Opposition Benches. Nevertheless, I am keen to support the development of the organic sector along market-led lines.
  Having been led along that track by others, let me return to my core point. The scheme to which I referred was oversubscribed last year. There are a number of examples of similar schemes, which I believe will be oversubscribed and in whose case the shortage of money is not related to a market problem. They include training schemes to encourage farmers to move into other sectors and improve their business skills, marketing assistance, and to some extent the development of support grant systems for farm-based enterprises.
  It is feared that older farmers are less able to envisage change, will be locked into continuing to farm, and will present a potential barrier to reform. That has always been my strongest argument for an early-retirement scheme.

  1051
  I know that many farmers would like an early-retirement package for their own reasons, wishing to extract themselves from an industry which, although they love it, no longer provides them with an income. That is a strong argument on a personal level, but there is also a micro-economic argument. The sector is ageing rapidly and, if we are seriously advocating reform, there is surely a need for fresh impetus, new faces and greater enthusiasm.
  Without wishing to direct criticism at an older generation of farmers, who have served this country well, one could argue that they are the least equipped to manage change. There is therefore an argument for reviewing the basis for an early retirement package.
  Nevertheless, I have listened carefully to the Minister's reasonable view that a large chunk of the cash would be wasted because a significant proportion of farmers who would be aided by an early retirement package would leave agriculture anyway. We would therefore simply be providing additional cash for pensions, which those farmers would claim in due course. I understand that rational argument, which is typical of the Treasury, and not necessarily shared by other Departments. We must consider it carefully, but, so far, the micro-economic argument for the change that I described has been badly expressed.
  I am not clear about the mechanism for implementing some of the policies. The part of the speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk that I heard referred to the role of regional service centres. I take a different view from the Opposition spokesman. There is plenty of room for reform in that service to farmers. However, greater co-ordination is required between support for farmers through regional service centres and support through the Small Business Service and various regional government offices. Provision of support and explanation of opportunity needs to be more finely tuned. So far, I am not persuaded that that has been thought through rigorously.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best forms of support for British agriculture is freedom from burdensome and unnecessary regulation? What is the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the draft Feedingstuffs Regulations 2000, which have come from the European Commission and to which the Minister has so far limply agreed? They will effectively prevent farmers from feeding their herds health-boosting minerals or vitamins, with the limited exception of compound feed. Does the hon. Gentleman know that the National Farmers Union regards them as unnecessary? What does he think?
  Mr. Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Those who have heard me speak about the subject know that I do not support greater regulation in farming. I was about to deal with regulation. The hon. Gentleman has therefore anticipated me, although I did not intend to refer to the regulations that he mentioned. However, his point deserves consideration.
  I should like first to make some positive comments. Various working parties were established to examine regulation in agriculture. I can claim a role in arguing strongly for the need for such working parties, and I am largely pleased with the results, especially the quality of the reports, which highlighted some problems, and the
  1052
  Government's positive response. I shall enter a caveat: I have never worked in the public sector and am therefore suspicious of British civil servants' ability to deregulate their activities, however instructed by politicians. When a decision is made to remove specific regulatory burdens, they often miraculously reappear by some other route.
  I welcome the statements, and the intellectual progress that has undoubtedly been made in examining the regulatory burden. However, I shall judge success by outcome rather than words. Again, I do not criticise my Front-Bench colleagues.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is allowed to do that.
  Mr. Todd: I prefer not to criticise them.
  As I have said, I have contributed regularly to the debates on agriculture. In a debate on the dairy sector, I referred to dairy hygiene inspection charges, which have caused particular anxiety. I urged the Government to tackle the additional burdens that the English—not the Scottish—dairy sector bears. Perhaps the Government were persuaded by my argument, although others also commented on the matter, but I was delighted that the dairy sector featured specifically in the action plan and that the burden will be removed. That represents a genuine cash gain for dairy farmers. However, my previous cautionary remarks about the removal of regulations apply.
  Another aspect of the action plan deals with aid for the pig sector. Like other Select Committee colleagues, I had the opportunity to question Commissioner Franz Fischler on potential aid packages for the pig sector before the Government devised their package. We had an entertaining Agriculture Question Time when another member of the Select Committee, who is sadly absent this afternoon, and I gave slightly different interpretations of the conversation.
  The Commissioner made it clear to the Select Committee that there was absolutely no basis on which the Government could provide support mechanisms for the continuing activity of the pig sector. The regime is light and the sector does not currently receive subsidies. To take the example that the industry chose, the United Kingdom Government could not argue for compensating the sector for what is perceived as the BSE tax to cover the additional burdens of disposing of offal, which would otherwise find a market. Commissioner Fischler's judgment was clear and I reported it to the Minister. In my question, I suggested that the future lay in an aid package that was focused on restructuring and additional marketing support. I am pleased that that featured in the Government's action plan.
  I alluded to the precise definition of restructuring in a more private meeting with representatives of the pig sector. It is rather vague. The Government's approach suggests that restructuring has an historical element. It is not entirely oriented towards the future; thus it is not designed to reduce the industry's capacity further. It is designed to look backwards at those who have already left the industry. That is an interesting definition of restructuring, but it is more helpful than an approach based only on the future.
  Mr. Nick Brown: I should like to backdate the measure to help those who have already departed, but the assistance is conditional on the capacity not returning.
  Mr. Todd: That was my understanding. Conditions are attached to the measure, but at least it attempts to

  1053
  compensate some people who have already left the pig sector, provided that the capital investment remains evident, that they have not demolished all the buildings and moved on to another industry. The measure is therefore another substantial gain.
  I want to comment on other aspects of agricultural policy. Although it is unclear whether the current World Trade Organisation round is a continuation of the Uruguay round or part of the bigger negotiation, it represents an excellent opportunity for the United Kingdom. I have already expounded to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State the view that the stamp of the United Kingdom's agricultural policy—which has always been reliance on the marketplace, not on subsidies, controls and quotas—at least enables us to communicate with countries from the Cairns group and, to a lesser extent, with the United States, which rely far less on those instruments. We have strong historical links with many members of the Cairns group, especially its key players.
  The Government's position is that we must respect the Commission's lead role and defer to its lead in the negotiations. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to give a clearly identifiable UK lead on the philosophical approach to those negotiations. I await an intervention from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman reads my mind. He is making an interesting speech, but does he agree that the Cairns group has been so critical of the CAP because of the damage that has been done, is being done and remains to be done by it to the developing world and the old Commonwealth, and that that is a serious problem not only for agriculture but for foreign policy?
  Mr. Todd: Unusually, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although perhaps it is not so unusual for us to agree on these matters. I have long held the view that the CAP is a potential enemy of the improvement of successful developing countries' agriculture. We should take any possible steps to recognise the need for vibrant and successful agriculture in the third world. That is one of the intellectual bases on which I would urge the United Kingdom to take a leading and active role in the current round of negotiations. Obviously, we also have the opportunity to communicate more closely with the United States than with some other partners. I have argued that, instead of taking the more passive role of accepting the Commission's lead, perhaps we should give greater prominence to the United Kingdom agenda for agriculture.
  Even Opposition Members would agree that welcome progress has been made on the goal of lifting the beef ban, although we might argue about how much. Obviously, we must now rely on the courts to achieve an outcome with France, but the Government's approach of engagement and constructive negotiation with our European partners has started to reopen doors for British beef. I urge a continuation of that process and the setting of more ambitious goals. Neither I nor the farmers whom I represent in the sector would be satisfied if we were to agree that we could export only butchered meat. As in the past, there is market for beef livestock from this country and we should explore as soon as possible the opportunities to reopen that market, with appropriate
  1054
  welfare support. I see no logical trading or health reason why a small beast could not be exported from this country now, but clearly we must take the negotiations step by step. I also recognise that some people take the principled stance that live exports of any kind should not be contemplated, although there is no representative of that view on the Benches behind me at present. I have never taken that view and believe that, in appropriate welfare conditions, we should re-engage in that reasonable export market.
  I have already taken up a great deal of time, so I shall deal with a couple of local concerns that are relevant to the debate. The farmers in my constituency are canny and cautious in many respects, but they are keen to engage in new value-added activity and they are looking for direct assistance with that. Several want to form a co-operative, which would allow them to process various products. Almost anything that can be grown—either animal or vegetable—is grown in South Derbyshire. The farmers have a variety of goals, but they want assistance with the development of their new enterprise. The rural development plan package for processing and market development could provide a basis for that, but I would welcome the Minister's explanation of how that package might be applied and how farmers might apply for that assistance. They do not expect huge Government subsidies, but I agree with them that, as part of the refocusing and modernisation of agriculture, helping them to make that change represents an appropriate public sector investment. I would welcome details of how that might be done.
  The second issue, which I have touched on not in the debate but in parliamentary questions, is further scrutiny of how the regulatory burden operates and the related issue of how that impacts on the market for key farming products. I refer to fertilisers, chemicals and drugs used to support the farm sector. [Interruption.] I hope that I can hold Ministers' attention for a moment. Local farmers regularly tell me that they pay significantly more for certain inputs than other farmers—for example, in France. The drugs, fertilisers and chemicals that they need to run their businesses are significantly more expensive in the United Kingdom than in our continental neighbours. That cannot be explained purely on the basis of the differences in currency; it seems to be linked to the slightly different regulatory requirements of member states. The farms are commercial enterprises and they are charged a premium for the products that make them more productive. I ask for that matter to be scrutinised further.
  As I have explained to the farmers whom I represent, I have always thought that there is a dynamic and attractive future for agriculture in this country, but there will be differences: agriculture much more clearly focused on markets and business skills than on husbandry and crop development. Identifying relationships with other parts of the food chain is also more important than ever. However, that represents an attractive future and I can already see the signs of change in South Derbyshire.
  The packages that the Government have produced recently will certainly assist that change. The critical issue will be engaging the individuals with reform in their minds in the farm sector with the officials and business people who can assist them with that process. I have to say—again, from my outsider's experience of never having worked within the sector—that it can sometimes

  1055
  be difficult to put together the private sector and the public sector enabler. Sometimes, the two hands miss each other somewhere in that process.
  The critical issue will be how we implement the strategies that emerge and how we ensure that the policy tools that have been identified actually work. That will be the test of our achievement.
  3.20 pm
  Mr. David Curry: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). I think that, on this occasion, my pleasure was achieved relatively early in his speech. I thought that his contribution earlier this week on the sale of National Air Traffic Services, an even more loyal speech than the one that he has just given, was perhaps more characteristic of his usual brevity.
  I start with a quotation from the bible for the day: the action plan for farming, which states on page 6:
  Government has a duty to ensure that the essential safeguards for the consumer, the taxpayer and the environment are in place. But we must regulate only where it is really necessary and make full use of market and voluntary measures to assist these objective.
  It is mis-spelt; it should be "objectives". It continues:
  The Government's policy on implementing EU obligations in relation to farming will be to avoid all "gold plating" of the legislation, its implementation and enforcement; to regulate in the least bureaucratic and burdensome way and to avoid implementing legislation ahead of specified EU deadlines…We will also negotiate in Brussels to secure measures that minimise regulatory burdens.
  We all say amen to that, but what we really want to know is: is it Genesis or is it Exodus? Has a new culture suddenly gripped Government, or is it a palliative from which they will resile in due course? That is a key issue.
  The question poses itself: do the Government see it as a prime purpose to give industry the means to compete fairly with European Union competitors in the single marketplace? One might say that the answer to that question is so axiomatic that it should not even be asked, but it must be asked because there is a history in the UK—a history under both the present Government and their predecessors—of imposing on industry burdens that competitors do not face, and of imposing them knowing that competitors do not face them.
  Two issues flow from that fundamental question. The first relates to the weight and extent of regulation in relation to that imposed on producers in other countries. The second is the cost of that regulation to industry in relation to the cost placed on producers and industries elsewhere.
  The Government have renounced gold plating, but Governments consistently do so. The Government speak of minimising regulation. Again, we all say amen to that, but do the Government accept that rules should be applied in what one might broadly term an equivalent way to the way in which rules are applied on the continent? Even more important, do the Government accept that the charges should be no more than those applying in the major competitor countries?
  If the answer is yes, it is a fundamental and welcome change in culture. I salute it and am very glad about it. Quite honestly, if the answer is yes, it is a far more important element for farmers than the agri-money compensation that we have spent so much time on today.
  1056
  That compensation is only tiding people over but if there is a fundamental change in the way in which we look at an industry, and if the Government embrace the notion that they must help to maintain competitiveness and so take actions that they might not necessarily wish to take, and renounce policies that they might not necessarily wish to renounce because we must recognise the existence of competitors in a single marketplace of which we are members, that is of fundamental importance for the future of the industry.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Curry: I shall. Hon. Members will not mind if I sort of half sit.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, more than 12 months ago, the then junior Cabinet Office Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), told me in a written answer that the Government had not published an annual estimate of the costs of regulation on business and, moreover, that Ministers did not intend to do so? Is that not a worrying sign of complacency?
  Mr. Curry: It is a worrying sign of complacency, but it is reassuring that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is no longer in the Government. If one looks at local election results in Liverpool, one begins to wonder whether that particular appeal of old Labour is pulling many strings in what one might term the heartlands.
  The action plan does not answer the questions that I have posed. It allows one to hint at the answer. It suggests that there may be an answer there, but I hope that, in her winding-up speech, the Minister can give a precise answer. I have a specific question for her: have the Government—by which we all mean the Treasury, of course—accepted that the doctrine of full economic cost recovery works massively to the disadvantage of British competitiveness and must be abandoned? I do not pretend that that is easy to do. I realise that there are legislative obligations and cost implications, so I do not pretend it is just a religious notion that can be cast aside. It is fundamental to the way in which we deal not merely with agriculture, but with industry more widely and the British question. It is relevant because on a wide range of issues the Government are—I recognise it—alleviating costs to farmers and related businesses, but is that a temporary relief, or a policy change? If things get better, will we come back to the non-relief, or have we changed our approach fundamentally?
  Mr. Nick Brown: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He is right that the sector's current difficulties throw the regulatory burden into stark relief because that, in many cases, involves fixed costs that do not move with the agricultural cycle. I believe in deregulation and in keeping regulatory burdens to a necessary minimum. I firmly oppose gold-plating European Union regulations. If the single market is to work, it should work fairly and equally across the whole market. I would hold to that view in good times and bad, although, of course, it is bad times that throw all these things into sharper relief.
  Mr. Curry: I am delighted that the Minister has made that intervention. He has given us a benchmark against

  1057
  which we will be able to judge many future actions, so I am grateful for that, but I want to take my argument a little further and to ask him a question that might be slightly more difficult: do the Government accept that they must create a level playing field for English farmers—because he is now responsible only for English farmers in many respects—within the UK?
  An illustration is dairy inspection charges, which have never been applied in Scotland, and which the Welsh Assembly is poised to get rid of. I wonder whether that was the spur to removing them in England. We recognise that they are not a massive charge. None the less, they were a symptom of a differential treatment.
  There are differentials in some of the allowances that are paid in the particularly disadvantaged areas. Specially high rates of premium are being paid, but it is important to ask that question. I will illustrate why by reference to another regulation: the integrated pollution prevention and control directive for intensive livestock farming. I welcome the action plan's deferral of implementation of the directive in the poultry and pig sectors from 2003–04 to 2007. That implements what the Minister has said—that we would not introduce the regulations in advance of other people. That reflects a recommendation from the Select Committee on Agriculture.
  Equally, I welcome cuts in the projected initial permit charge of £12,000 to £18,000—for which the Environment Agency struggled to find any rationale when it appeared in front of the Committee—and in the £7,000 annual charge to less than half that, but the fact remains that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's proposed charges for Scotland started at half the English charges. My suggestion was that we should ask the agency in Scotland to apply that in England as well, on a contractual basis.
  Even if we are dealing with speculative figures in Scotland that come down, there will still be a disequilibrium in the United Kingdom, let alone within the wider European Union. We know that many EU countries will either not charge at all or will do so at a much lower rate. What is the policy implication in the light of the Minister's recent intervention about the level at which charges will finally be settled? Will he say that we should have a look at what is happening in Holland, Denmark, Germany or northern France, which are the competing countries in terms of pigmeat? Will we settle our charges in terms of what is being charged in those areas? They are not cheating. In deciding to impose lower charges, they are availing themselves of a facility that is in the directive.
  The groundwater regulations concern my constituency because they apply to the way in which sheep dip is disposed of. The Government have said that they are abolishing the annual charge of £107 for the first four years in favour of a single £85 application charge. We welcome that, but is it a temporary relief? What charges are levied on competitors? Do the Government even know? I am often struck by the paucity of the Government's information about what other countries are doing.
  Frankly, one does not have to be a magician to believe the continental agricultural press, or to have our posts overseas make the necessary contacts. There is nothing
  1058
  particularly secret about the information, although it takes some winkling out. There are plenty of English farmers who have established themselves in France who would be perfectly willing to constitute a fifth column in giving practical information to the Government, the posts in Paris or the consulates.
  We have seen the deferral of the charges on abattoirs and increases in the meat inspection charges held to the rate of inflation. Where is the policy headed in that field? What is the EU practice? I am sorry to be repetitive, but I emphasise that we have no choice but to see the way in which we apply policy through the optic of the wider application in the EU. Otherwise, we prove our own worst enemy; it is not what our competitors do to us that is the problem, but what we do to ourselves. We must march in step.
  There may be intrinsic merit in full economic cost recovery. In many regards, I would say that there is. The Minister is right that it is either a charge on the user or a charge on the taxpayer. However, we must judge that by its impact on the competitive marketplace.
  I appeal to the Minister to recognise that it is difficult for a farmer who has just been told that he is to get the non-imposition of a higher charge to interpret that as an additional support for him. If it were an additional support, the Minister would have the most cost-free way of helping farmers imaginable: simply multiplying the charges that he says are necessary, and not applying them. That is monopoly money support.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, some weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that there would be no further money available to farmers because, frankly, the money was not the there? Then, the Prime Minister went to Devon a few days later and said that the farming industry was not in crisis. Is it not the case that the Government do not know how to resolve the problem, that they cannot help the farmers and that they are not prepared to deal with the common agricultural policy properly?
  Mr. Curry: I agree that the CAP reform agreed in Berlin was thin gruel in comparison even with how the Minister had left it. That is an extraordinary role reversal. Normally, Agriculture Ministers agree on reform and everyone else in government says that it is pathetic and that real Ministers, such as Treasury Ministers, could get a much more radical reform. This time, the Minister agreed a reform that the Prime Minister diluted. It is a remarkable achievement to dilute something agreed by Agriculture Ministers. It is rather like gaining a pass degree at one of the better universities; it is much harder to get than a first, if I may put it in those terms.
  On the action plan, there are things there with which we have sympathy, but I am trying to find out the policy ideas that lie behind it. The Government talk about the review of food safety measures in relation to BSE and CJD, concerning the over-30 months scheme in cattle and the future of the meat and bonemeal ban and of the removal and disposal of specified risk materials. The Government repeat the word "proportionality", which we have all got used to.
  The Government have asked for a review, and have made sure that it is packed with the world and his wife. There is pretty good cover in the review, and almost

  1059
  everyone will be implicated. Do the Government think that the review is necessary because proportionality has been disproportionate in some ways? Is the thought process behind the proposal that the system has not been working, or that circumstances have changed and that it can work differently? Are we looking for a different equilibrium?
  The Government do not escape from their responsibility. I accept that with the Food Standards Agency, there has been a redistribution of ministerial responsibility, but there is a Government role and it is important to know the Government's thinking. When they talk about strengthening risk assessment procedures, what has prompted that thought process?
  I welcome the review of the Meat Hygiene Service, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) may wish to raise the issue of a plant with high sheep throughput which has been threatened. [Interruption.] To do so, of course, he will have to be in the Chamber. The health rules have a direct impact on costs. The Minister said that he wishes to get EU clearance to use assistants, rather than full vets, in abattoirs. He is reviewing the legislation which relates to the skills of those who work in meat-processing operations. That has a strong cost implication. I hope that he will be successful, because no one has seriously felt that previous practices have led to a food risk in that area.
  I agree substantially with what the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said in regard to rural development planning. There will be funding of £1.6 billion over seven years, which will be part-funded by a levy on support, or modulation; I recently had my knee modulated so I know that modulation can be quite painful. That will not get us very far, and the Minister is right that it has to be buttressed with a series of other measures.
  It is important to recognise that helping the countryside will not automatically help agriculture. If we are setting out to help agriculture, there is not necessarily a wider spin-off to the countryside. Agriculture is now a small-scale industry, even in large parts of the countryside, and we must not confuse the two terms.
  The Minister was right to emphasise the importance of planning rules, but he knows that that is not easy. Most people who come to my surgeries on planning matters do so to ask to get something stopped, not to get something done. It is easy to talk about the use of redundant farm buildings, but a village may not favour that because it is fearful of noise or more traffic. Almost invariably, the argument made against such use is based on the increased traffic flow that will come from it.
  The Minister will therefore have to persuade Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the matter. DETR Ministers will not only have to be committed to persuading local authorities to make something happen, but prepared for the subsequent letters to surgeries, as planning rules will not be regarded universally as a popular option.
  The Minister was of course right to talk about more active business promotion. I should have thought that he might like to talk more about the active promotion of skills. In the uplands of Britain, half the farmers are over 50. Half of them have no recognised heir wanting to take over the operation, and half of them have no recognised skill of any sort. Very few sites are available for industrial development, as transport links have not been built, and
  1060
  there may well be environmental and planning reasons for not developing them. Additionally, with the best will in the world—simply because of the economics of providing private-sector transport—there is a limit on the extent to which sparse public transport can be improved in rural areas.
  Concealed in the countryside, often living alongside prosperous areas, there is a significant amount of what we now call social exclusion. Although social exclusion is not easily seen up in the dales of my constituency, it contributes to a lowered quality of life for many of those who are working effectively for pocket money. So although it is important that we treat agriculture, it is equally important that other action should be considered in parallel, and that rural development should be seen in the round.
  My final remarks are on the broader subject of common agricultural policy reform. We need to move closer to the marketplace. The problem is that farmers face continuing absolute uncertainty: they seem to live under the permanently provisional.
  Various avalanches are sliding slowly down the mountain. We have the avalanche of the World Trade Organisation slipping slowly down the mountain, with various threats of doomsdays that I do not find entirely convincing. The enlargement negotiations are another avalanche that is quietly slipping down the mountain. We have the constant argument about European budgets, which is another landslip coming down the mountain. Farmers feel that they are in their path. Although the avalanches may not move particularly quickly, and some farmers may be able to get out of the way, there is a permanent sense of unease.
  The Agenda 2000 package was inadequate not only because it did not meet the needs of the WTO or set the scene effectively for enlargement, but in its own right. Even without those external circumstances, the package was an inadequate response to the needs of the CAP. The CAP is increasingly anomalous as a command system in a world in which the liberal market economy is in the ascendant.
  We all argue—the Government more than many—that we want adopted on the continent some of those more liberal economic measures, which are what we think generate employment, wealth and prosperity. I think that farmers are beginning to believe that, having tried some of the alternatives, they should opt for some of the potentially quite hard certainties that would be imposed on them by depending on the marketplace, rather than continue with the constant uncertainty engendered by not knowing what will happen to the support structure on which they depend.
  Such a change would of course require vigour in policing the internal market and we would need to promote the schemes to which the Minister—like the rest of us—is committed to help farmers in their maintenance of the environment. Implementation of such a scheme would in itself be difficult. It is much easier to see how we might do that in the Yorkshire dales than in Chelmsford and East Anglia, simply because of the nature of the geography and the landscape.
  One should be cautious, however, before assuming that we are present at the death of farming. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, we are certainly present at the institution of quite radical change—which I

  1061
  do not think necessarily relates to size. The key now is whether one owns one's farm and owes no money on it, and whether one employs people. If one owns one's farm, employs no labour and is not in hock to the bank, one will probably be able to batten down the hatches. However, the formula for tenant farmers is even more complex, as they do not have a disposable asset. In my constituency, if tenant farmers want to leave their farms in the dales, there is no way that they can live in the very expensive properties in dales villages.
  We shall see a move towards more capital-intensive, larger-scale and perhaps more corporate agriculture. The danger is that, because of amalgamation, we shall also see a move, perhaps necessarily, away from husbandry and towards ranching. Amalgamation will change the nature of agriculture fundamentally.
  I hope that, when the Minister reflects on today's debate, he will be able to make it clear—as I think he intended to do in his speech—that he now clearly understands that he has a fundamental duty to ensure that we give our people the best opportunity to compete in the marketplace. Making that change will have financial and regulatory consequences for Government policy. However, if we do not make it, there is no earthly point in complaining about whatever nefarious practices there may be in France or about how continental Governments do things differently. If we do not make it, we shall be the creators of the initial hurdle facing farmers. If the change of culture is upon us, I shall certainly welcome it.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who—given his experience as an Agriculture Minister—brings to the debate a measured approach, and a more balanced perspective on Europe than many of his colleagues. He rightly mentioned social exclusion in the farming community. Would that the previous Government had recognised social exclusion anywhere, in the farming community or in the urban community, and that there had been greater concern about social exclusion and inequality in the past 20 years. We might have avoided some of the problems that we now face.
  I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I was very pleased with some of his announcements. I was particularly pleased with his announcement that the Inland Revenue is considering the application of the working families tax credit to the farming community, although it is sad that it is being forced to do so. I wonder if Ministers will consider applying the national minimum wage to the farming community. Many farmers in my constituency would like to be earning the equivalent of £3.60 an hour, given the considerable number of hours that they work. Many of them have incomes far below the minimum wage.
  Farming is the dominant industry in Monmouthshire. In recent meetings organised by the National Farmers Union and by the Farmers Union of Wales, which I have attended, the crisis in farming has been clearly demonstrated. I was pleased that Christine Gwyther, the Welsh Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, was able to attend a recent meeting, and I was pleased with her responses to our representations. However, much more has to be done.
  1062
  The crisis affecting farming reflects the strength of sterling, and part of sterling's strength reflects the success of the Government's economic policies. However, this is not the time to address that issue; we must address other issues, such as the costs of the BSE crisis. We inherited that crisis from the previous Government. I shall not put all the blame on them, but they might have handled it differently. I think that we all await the outcome of the BSE inquiry with some anticipation.
  The lack of a long-term strategy for the farming industry is another issue, as are low world commodity prices.
  CAP reform has been very slow. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the enormous number of meetings that he must be attending in Brussels to try to secure a better deal for Britain's farming community. We need to reform the CAP, and to move away from some of the traditional price supports and towards more agri-environmental support. We have to decrease the number of burdensome regulations, which seem to be applied so unevenly in different parts of Europe.
  Britain has generally high animal welfare standards. It is unfortunate that they are not applied and implemented in other European countries. There is inequity in the conditions facing Britain's farmers compared with those facing farmers in Europe. Although British farmers should not be paralysed by Europe's intransigence, I agree with some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon.
  It is to the Government's credit that there was a Downing street summit, which was very welcome. It showed that they are listening to the farming community, and that the Prime Minister is intervening in the crisis. If there had been a Downing street summit on agriculture every three years for the past 50 years, we might not have some of our present problems.
  It is good to see that the Government are trying to develop a long-term strategy. Some of the measures announced in the action plan for farming are particularly welcome—such as the £60 million support for hill farmers and £22 million agri-monetary compensation for dairy farmers, beef farmers and sheep farmers. That has generally been welcomed by the industry, but we all recognise that although much has been done, much more needs to be done.
  In Monmouthshire, the farming community is made up mainly of lowland farmers, with some upland farmers. It concentrates mainly on beef and sheep. Monmouthshire is in a particularly beautiful part of the United Kingdom, and the beauty of the area owes a great deal to the hard work that farmers have put into maintaining the environment, with very little recompense. I invite any hon. Member to come to the Llanthony valley, which is one of the most beautiful parts of Wales. How sad it is to hear of small family farms in that beautiful area having to give up the business.
  Mr. Livsey: Llanthony abbey and the valley are on the boundary of my constituency. The young people in that valley can no longer engage in farming because the money is not there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ministers must urgently address the problem of youngsters going into farming, and give them maximum assistance, in conjunction with a retirement scheme?
  Mr. Edwards: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. There are clearly many young people who

  1063
  would like to have a future in farming, but find that the prospects look bleak. In many cases, their parents would like to retire and allow the business to be carried on—but Europe has paralysed us. A woman farmer phoned me recently and said sadly that her son had refused to go into the farm business and wanted to go to university, but because of the crisis in their family income, they had great doubts about whether they could afford to send him there. That is a tragic catch 22.
  I met a farmer recently who had been penalised to the tune of £7,000 for making one inadvertent mistake on an application form for sheep annual premium. That is not natural justice. The Inland Revenue does not treat people like that. I do not know why people in the agriculture industry should be penalised to that extent for simple, inadvertent mistakes.
  This morning, I met a farmer who was pleased with some of the announcements from the Downing street summit and anticipated that he might gain about £600 in agri-monetary compensation, but he asked how that could compensate for the £10,000 that he had lost in the past couple of years as a result of the high value of sterling.
  Monmouthshire is a beautiful part of Wales where farming is in crisis, but it does not have objective 1 or objective 2 status. Farmers who may wish to diversify—I am sure that many do not, and find diversification a bit of a dirty word—do not get the structural support that they might get if they lived 30 or 40 miles away. We need to allow greater investment in the industry.
  There has been a campaign in my constituency for a new market in the middle of Monmouthshire, given the limitations of the present markets at Monmouth and Abergavenny. I have tried to impress on the local authority that it should have an economic development role in farming. Local authorities and other agencies in Wales have been successful in helping with economic development for manufacturing, but they have not engaged much with economic development for agriculture, which is one of the key industries in the area.
  Mr. Baldry: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. When hon. Members make speeches in the House, they usually hope that the Minister will be able to reply to their points. As we have established that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench have no responsibility for agriculture in Wales, because it is a responsibility that has been devolved to the Welsh Assembly, to whom is the hon. Gentleman making his speech? Does not the fact that he feels the need to make a speech on agriculture in Wales show the craziness of having a Welsh Assembly and breaking up the United Kingdom, as his party has done?
  Mr. Edwards: With all due respect, I do not accept most of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Dr. Godman: Similar concerns were raised during the passage of the Scotland Act in 1998. Scottish Members said that they had the right to question MAFF Ministers on matters relating to farming in Scotland. Surely the same holds true for Wales.
  Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I only wish that the Welsh Assembly had the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. When I attended a recent
  1064
  meeting of farmers in my constituency, it was interesting that they felt that the problem was that the Welsh Assembly did not have enough teeth. It was refreshing to hear that, because—as I do not need to remind the House—I represent the area that recorded the highest no vote in the referendum for the Welsh Assembly. I hope that consideration will be given to ensuring that the Welsh Assembly has more powers.
  Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as it is Ministers from this Parliament who negotiate with their colleagues on the European mainland, it is clearly right that Welsh matters should be debated?
  Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It is mainly Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, representing England, who go to Brussels to work on the common agricultural policy. I am happy to address my comments to them.
  The poultry sector does not get as much consideration in our debates as the more traditional beef and sheep sectors. My constituency has an important Sun Valley turkey processing plant. That sector has also had difficulties, suffering from the differential implementation of animal welfare standards. Poultry farmers have been disadvantaged by the fact that poultry can be fed on meat and bonemeal in Europe, but not in this country. Chicken comes to this country from Thailand and South America, where there are dubious animal welfare standards that would not and should not be tolerated in this country.
  Farmers have raised a number of concerns at recent meetings in my constituency. The fall in milk prices is clearly a worry. I sincerely hope that Ministers continue their negotiations with the supermarkets, which now monopolise the market, to ensure a fair deal for dairy farmers. There is scope for movement. I am pleased that the Government have removed the dairy hygiene charges and are reviewing the meat hygiene charges. Those are welcome announcements and I sincerely hope that the relevant statutory instruments are passed in Wales as early as possible.
  It is sad to hear young people wondering whether they will have a future in the industry. Usk agricultural college is in my constituency, and I sometimes wonder whether we have given agricultural education the same priority as other areas of education. We believe in the valid principle of lifelong learning.
  Mr. Breed: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a shame that agriculture GCSE is not to continue? Some 700 students a year took that examination to help them to go on to agricultural college, and they will no longer be able to do so.
  Mr. Edwards: I am interested to hear that, because I was not aware of it. I am concerned that our agricultural colleges should be as vibrant as our business schools. I wonder whether they are getting the investment that they need to provide the lifelong learning, training and management experience that the existing farming community deserves.
  Mr. Todd: From my already over-long speech, I struck out a planned reference to agricultural education. Does my hon. Friend agree that an opportunity has arisen for a

  1065
  wholesale review of the support that we give to training and education in agriculture? That would be consistent with the Government's strategy.
  Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
  Ever more farmers in my constituency want to go into agri-environmental schemes. In Wales, the Tyr Gofal scheme has increased in value from £4 million to £7.5 million this year, and in future years it will increase from £7 million to nearly £11 million. Those announcements are welcome, although scope remains for more resources to go into Tyr Gofal and other agri-environmental schemes.
  The Government have increased the resources for organic conversion. There is considerable demand in my constituency, as there will be in many others, for support for farmers to undertake organic conversion, so I hope that the Government will continue to think seriously about the issue.
  Let me turn to the subject of slaughterhouse charges. I have in my constituency, in the very heart of Monmouthshire, the Raglan slaughterhouse, owned by the lovely James family. They are struggling because of the veterinary fees that they have to pay. I go to the slaughterhouse to talk to them about their problems—and I am always mighty relieved to get away alive. They are concerned about the very high charges that the veterinary profession, with its monopoly, has imposed on the industry, much to the disadvantage of the small independent slaughterhouse, which provides such an important facility for our local farming communities.
  In conclusion, I wish Ministers every success in their negotiations on common agricultural policy reform. Farmers work exceedingly hard providing high-quality food to feed our people, and maintaining the environment. They deserve a better deal than they have had in recent years, and I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends every success in working to achieve a better deal for farmers in the future.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members agree about the need for reform of the common agricultural policy. Much of the frustration that has been caused has been to do with the speed of reform. It was surprising that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should remark how successful he thought that Agenda 2000 had been. Many people, not only in the House but those working in agriculture, were extremely disappointed at the relatively modest reforms that were ultimately achieved.
  We have to ask ourselves whether there is another agenda in the process. Enlargement is on the agenda, and many countries have indicated that they are in favour of it. However, I sometimes wonder whether they do not want enlargement to take place particularly quickly, and look on reform of the CAP as a break in the enlargement process. The difficulty is to reach agreements that allow us to proceed and reform the CAP with any speed.
  It is clear that European Union member states will have to move away—gradually, and whether they like it or not—from direct subsidy for production and towards a
  1066
  policy to support wider rural development, for which we and others are pressing. The CAP will be entirely different in a few years. I hesitate to suggest that it might become a common rural and agricultural policy, because that has an unfortunate acronym. However, that is the way in which the agricultural policy must go. It must be much more responsive to the marketplace and to rural concerns.
  I, too, welcome the farming summit, although it took place a little late—we have been calling for one for quite some while. Although there has been little progress on CAP reform, many of us hoped that the summit would take place earlier. However, it has not really changed anything. Agriculture is still in crisis. Some prices have improved marginally—some farmers are approaching the glory days of breaking even, but that will not compensate them for the huge losses that they have incurred over recent years.
  Last year was a poor year for farm incomes, and now we learn that they are likely to fall again this year. The misery will continue for many of our farmers and growers. We are concerned with the speed at which change should happen, and the way in which we see the future. For the rest of this year and probably for part of next year, a huge change in the weakness of the euro against the strength of the pound is very unlikely. Yet I cannot see what the Government's strategy is in dealing with that problem. We will have to live with it, and we need to know that there is at least a strategy for dealing with that uncompetitive currency situation.
  Regulation continues to hamper the competitiveness of our farming businesses. I was extremely pleased to learn that 98 of the 107 recommendations have been accepted by the Government. However, I would like to see a timetable for the introduction of those measures. That will enable farmers to feel confident about the way in which they manage their business under the new deregulated, lightly regulated, or differently regulated scheme.
  Concern has been expressed about the problem of the MAFF regional service centres. There is a growing disquiet that farmers will not be able to access the information that they require to fulfil their obligations on their integrated administration and control system forms or any other type of regulation. They have had the luxury of being able to speak directly to the officials dealing with their forms and their circumstances, and who would be understanding. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) gave the terrible example of someone who made an honest mistake and paid dearly for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned appeals, and we need to consider that issue. Of course there have been deliberately fraudulent claims, but they are relatively few. The overwhelming number of mistakes on these highly complex forms have been made because farmers have been unable to complete them absolutely satisfactorily. They have paid significant sums in penalties for their mistakes.
  The additional costs on the industry have not melted away significantly since the farming summit. Most of them still exist. Animal welfare costs, which are not borne by competitors abroad, will be with us for the foreseeable future. However, there are others hovering around, such as the new integrated pollution prevention and control regulations, the welfare regulations on egg production, the climate change levy and its effect on horticulture. Even

  1067
  the pesticide tax is still hovering in the background—it has not been dismissed as if it will never be introduced. Those additional burdens are on farmers every day. We must speed up the implementation of the objectives with which we all agree.
  Uncertainty in the industry is the major obstacle to recovery. Farmers find it difficult to plan their business—farms are businesses, and they need business plans—bankers do not have much confidence in farming incomes in the future, and costs may be visited upon farming businesses at any time.
  In addition, there are the potential problems of planning, which have been aired in the debate. Planning will play a critical part in the process of recovery and diversification. It will be possible to put some pieces of land to alternative uses, but not all.
  Only this week I have been trying to assist a constituent who was a pig fanner and who is now hoping to be able to build an observatory. There is still some quite clear air in Cornwall and occasionally, when it is not raining, there is a clear sky. There are good opportunities for those people who want to spend a few days learning about the stars, for example.
  There have been negotiations for seven, eight or nine months on the building of an observatory and the provision of some farming accommodation. It is difficult to imagine the problems that have ensued. I am certain that the planning officers are following planning guidance to the letter, but whether they are doing any great favours to the area in which they are operating needs to be questioned.
  The farm summit was the Government's attempt to help the industry back on to its feet. It was welcome, but a few months on we are waiting for the money. Farmers are waiting to see how they can get their hands on it so that they can keep their business together and continue to face the bank manager and their suppliers. Gaps have appeared following the summit, and when the Minister of State replies she might address them.
  For example, the aid announced for hill farmers is less than they were receiving in some instances. Some of the aid will have to be used for consultancy. It will not go direct to farmers, but it will enable them to obtain a consultant's report.
  I have tried to quantify the money that will be made available for marketing. I agree with the Government that as farm subsidies are reduced, it is vital that we concentrate on the demand side and increase it. Marketing will play a significant part in that process. The marketing budget of a major plc is often up to six times as much as the money that agriculture will supposedly be able to use to market produce in the UK and abroad, a sum which is entirely inadequate. That is not to say that we do not welcome it or that we eschew it, but enormous sums are being spent on marketing and the industry should have proportionate funds.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the agricultural development scheme, for example, which is up and running. I remind him that marketing is part of the rural
  1068
  development regulations. The demand for marketing in the different regions can be reflected in some of the regional priorities under rural development plans.
  Mr. Breed: I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification but I do not think that it changes what I am saying. The annual report of a large public company will set out the moneys that are being spent in promoting its brand, product and everything else. The sums are extraordinary. We are deceiving ourselves if we say that we shall see a significant improvement in both domestic and foreign demand for farming produce, given the budgets that the Government are suggesting.
  The industry does not have the money to market its produce. It is to be hoped that those that sell it—for example, supermarkets—will be prepared to put some money into marketing for their own reasons. The moneys that are now available are clearly not sufficient.
  In December 1999, the Minister announced the introduction of a limited form of modulation at a flat rate of 2.5 per cent., rising to 4.5 per cent. in 2005–06. The process of going into modulation was controversial, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches had supported it for quite some time. However, the flat-rate modulation has some drawbacks, which we need to identify. It hits hardest those farmers who can least afford the loss of subsidy. That is much to be regretted because the farmers concerned feel rather hurt.
  The low level of 2.5 per cent., although I accept that it is a starting level, is too low to free up sufficient funds, even on a matched basis, to provide a significant boost for rural development schemes. I know that modulation will roll on, but when it came to an up-front boost it was not significant.
  The way in which modulation will be introduced was not among the models that were agreed by the Commission. I assume that a flat-rate scheme would need the specific approval of the Commission. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether that approval has been received or has been applied for.
  We believe that the present modulation scheme, although welcome, is flawed. It is a new model scheme but there are other options available, which already have Commission approval. We would promote a tiered structure of modulation, which would ensure that those in greatest need of aid would continue to receive it, while freeing up more significant funds to deal with the important business of rural development and environmental protection. However, the Government seemed to allow that system to pass by. Perhaps they considered it and decided against it. Perhaps also they will tell us why they came to that view. Many smaller farmers would have felt that such a method of modulation would help them.
  I do not know whether the representatives of small farmers were present at the summit or whether their views were represented. However, it seems that the system of modulation that is to be introduced does not suit their circumstances.
  The pressures of World Trade Organisation and European Union enlargement mean that the supply subsidy is finite, but to what extent I do not know. We need to work on the product of which our farmers and we are rightly proud. We must add value to the product and then market it with force, both here and abroad. That initiative needs additional financial support, among other things, to get the demand side moving.

  1069
  We have raised previously the early retirement scheme. The Minister was frank some months ago when he said that the Government had considered it closely and carefully. It had been costed and he said that it was deemed not to be value for money. We took that to mean that many farmers would be retiring anyway, and thus to provide them with an additional sum in those circumstances would not be a good use of taxpayers' money.
  The truth is, however, that many farmers are not retiring. That is not because they do not want to but because they cannot. They are locked into a progressively more miserable situation. They cannot extricate themselves, and that applies particularly to tenant farmers. A growing number of farmers of increasing age want to retire but simply cannot.
  Remarkably enough, many other people would like to go into farming, but are being locked out. They cannot find a way into the kind of unit—a small farm or a tenancy—that they could take on. I hope that the Government will reconsider an early retirement scheme. It need not be so broad as to include everyone who the Minister suggested would benefit unnecessarily. It could be targeted at those who are locked into circumstances from which they would wish to extricate themselves. It could also offer opportunities to new blood coming into the industry.
  A retirement scheme that could tackle those twin objectives would not be enormously expensive. A targeted approach would provide an opportunity to revitalise farming, bringing in people likely to be able to diversify, use the land for different purposes, employ new techniques and go into organic production. Unless we change the personnel in our agricultural industry, we shall not see quick enough change. The industry will grind slowly on.
  An early retirement scheme is an essential part of the Government's master plan. I agree with their medium and long-term strategies, but an early retirement scheme would allow their aims to come to pass much more quickly. It would also have the benefit of retaining more small farm units. Without that, holdings will simply become larger, preventing even more people from getting started in farming on their own account. Farmers and growers need sustained support at this critical time.
  Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for a comprehensive interdepartmental approach to farming and rural concerns. Did he notice an answer that I received yesterday from the Minister for the Cabinet Office? She wrote:
  Primary responsibility for rural policy lies with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister while the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs, which I chair, will play an important co-ordination role.—[Official Report, 10 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 432W.]
  Does my hon. Friend find it significant that there is no mention of a role for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the development of rural policy? Does he believe that the time has come for a better interdepartmental vehicle that would achieve the comprehensive approach that he is advocating?
  Mr. Breed: Yes, it is somewhat surprising that MAFF was not mentioned. I suspect that that was a slip, and hope that the Minister will tackle the point.
  1070
  I agree with the Government's objectives, and we all want reform as well as protection of our environment, all of which must happen more quickly than at present predicted. I hope that the future will not charge us with delaying the improvements that we want in the CAP, in enlarging the EU, in protecting the countryside, in allowing diversification and in ensuring that agriculture remains an important part of our rural life. If we do not get the time frame right, people will drift out of the industry, our environment will not be protected and the CAP may become the means by which enlargement of the EU never takes place.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the debate on agriculture and the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. I go back long enough to have heard the original debate on whether Britain should enter the Common Market. We were told in the referendum debate at that time that it was simply a common market that would allow us easier access if we wanted to sell to other parts of Europe. We were told that no great change could take place without unanimity and that if Britain wanted something not to happen, we could veto it easily. That was what the people of Britain voted for when we went into the Common Market.
  Over the intervening years, matters have proved not quite so simple. Europe has intervened in every aspect of our lives. It becomes ever clearer that we are heading for some kind of united Europe. The common agricultural policy probably worked in its first years, but Britain is now disadvantaged by it. Our economy does not equate with those of many other European Union countries, and that puts us at a continual disadvantage. Furthermore, when we wish to advance policies that are to our advantage, we generally find that they are not advantageous to the other countries. When agreement is required among the countries, we tend to end up at a disadvantage.
  The farming industry faces considerable difficulties—enlargement of the EEC, the lowering of world prices and the pressures of the World Trade Organisation for more even competition—all of which increase pressure on the CAP. We are finding it difficult to amend the policy. The Minister has told us that progress has been made on the Agenda 2000 settlement. That may be so, but there has not been enough to allow us to deal with the difficulties that farmers face.
  Northern Ireland has a greater difficulty in that it has a land border with the Republic of Ireland. For some peculiar reason, the Republic always seems to do better than the United Kingdom in negotiations. Our farmers in Northern Ireland are sometimes at a considerable disadvantage to those in the Republic of Ireland. Those who want a united Ireland always say, "Look how much better it would be if we were united so that you in Northern Ireland could have all the advantages that we have in the European common market." That does not go down well with the Unionists.
  I welcome the interest taken in Northern Ireland by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has visited us several times and shown great sympathy with the plight of farmers, especially pig farmers. Of course, even though there is no European regime for pig farmers, Europe still has to agree with everything that happens. Much negotiation and agreement still has to take place before the actual money comes to pig farmers.

  1071
  I welcome the fact that there will be two forms of support for pig farmers—especially the outgoers scheme. The Minister said that there would need to be a stipulation that farmers must not go in again, but it seems unlikely that a pig farmer who had been put out of pig farming would want to go back. Those farmers have been destroyed—many of them face large debts from the banks and virtual bankruptcy. The prospect of their going back seems remote. However, I welcome the efforts being made to help them, and the fact that the scheme will go back to June 1998. Hopefully, some aid will be given. The farmers who have stayed in the industry also need help; it is necessary for reconstruction to take place. I welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
  A prevalent issue in Northern Ireland is the move to designate it as an area of low incidence of BSE. I appreciate that the Minister has cottoned on to that idea and has given it as much support as he can. Originally, I thought that the matter was simple, but I have discovered its complexity. Although farmers are looking forward to that designation, in the hope that they will be able to sell their calves and get rid of their animals more quickly, there are several disadvantages. The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland expressed grave concern that, if we become a low-BSE area, it might not be possible to import to Northern Ireland some of the products that are currently imported.
  Some factories in Northern Ireland have also expressed concern. At present, they bring in meat from the mainland for processing; it is then sent back to the mainland. That may not be possible under low-incidence status. Those problems need to be researched to find a satisfactory solution.
  The idea that everything in the garden will be rosy if we receive that status is open to question. At present, Northern Ireland can export cattle, but in fact there are no such exports. That is because so many rules and regulations have to be fulfilled—such as designated factories or parts of factories—that, unless there is a high output of cattle, export makes no economic sense. There is no supply of cattle for export.
  Furthermore, some farmers unfortunately do not keep such accurate records as they should, so they cannot export their cattle. I support the view, expressed by the permanent secretary at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, that those farmers need to bring—and keep—their records up to date. If they fail to do so, they will be at a considerable disadvantage.
  The over-30 months scheme has been mentioned. Will that scheme continue if Northern Ireland receives low incidence of BSE status? That proposal raises many questions. I realise that the Minister is doing his best. He has received representations from many companies and other sources. I hope that he will be able to produce a scheme that is accepted by Europe, that will disadvantage nobody and that will help farmers in Northern Ireland.
  I welcome the relaxations in planning laws, so that, if diversification takes place, it will be easier to obtain planning permission.
  Over the past few years, farmers have had a difficult time and they are greatly in debt. Recently, we have been encouraged in Northern Ireland by the good weather. There was a tremendous amount of rain and the ground was extremely wet. However, the fact that we have had several weeks of good weather has at last put a smile on
  1072
  farmers' faces. Perhaps things are changing and the outlook may be better than they anticipated some months ago.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). I agree with much of what he said.
  I make no apology for the fact that my remarks are not the received wisdom. I speak from the perspective of someone who has spent a lifetime in the meat and livestock industry, earning a living on both sides of the farm gate, both as a practical butcher and as a practical farmer. At the conclusion of my speech, I shall pose two straightforward and fundamental questions—one to the Government and one to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Not surprisingly, the debate so far has concentrated on the detail and the mechanics of the CAP. I want to focus on the principles that are at stake. I trust that hon. Members on both Front Benches will do me the courtesy of responding to my questions to show that, at least, they recognise the importance of a comprehensive debate on such important matters, rather than simply going through the motions.
  In a recent bulletin, Lloyds TSB Scotland stated:
  The current state of the agricultural industry is unsustainable in the longer term.
  I agree. However, what can we, as parliamentarians, do about that regrettable situation? The truthful answer is, "Not much".
  Speaking at the annual general meeting of the Farmers Union of Wales, its president, Bob Parry set out an eight-point action plan, which included the demand for
  greater powers for the Welsh Assembly so it could find Welsh solutions to Welsh problems.
  What a wonderful aspiration—but what is the reality? It is that there can be no Welsh solutions to Welsh problems, any more than there can be English solutions to English problems.
  Under the CAP, virtually the only solutions permitted are European ones, decided on by the EU, collectively, in Brussels. Let us consider, for example, the pig industry—of which I have some experience and in which I declare an interest. That industry would like a British solution to its uniquely British problems. It would like, for example, to spend the £26 million aid package announced in March primarily on restructuring among producers. However, EU regulations dictate that the funds available should first be spent on an outgoers scheme. Given the dramatic reduction that has already occurred in the national pig herd, that is the last thing the British pig industry needs, if, as a nation, we are to avoid becoming ever more reliant on imports.
  Right hon. and hon. Members, who have campaigned on behalf of their pig farmer constituents for the past two years will have experienced the frustration of finding every avenue that they explored blocked by the decrees of the collective in Brussels. The plain fact of the matter is that neither the Government nor Parliament can make the decisions so desperately necessary to salvage what is left of the British fishing industry and the British agriculture industry. The authority to make those

  1073
  decisions is no longer ours. Under the terms of the European treaties, decisions have to be made by the collective in Brussels.
  Let us take but one example. The Government recently set up the meat industry red tape working group—the Pooley committee—to investigate the problems of the abattoir sector, in particular, and to report back. The Pooley report followed and, generally speaking, the Government agreed with it and accepted most of its 35 recommendations. However, in the case of two of the most important recommendations—precisely those on vets that led to the peremptory closure of the Mead Webber sheep abattoir in Herefordshire two weeks ago—they could do nothing. That was not because the Government were unwilling or disagreed with the recommendations or because they would cost a lot of money, but simply because the Government would first need to obtain EU approval. Shakespeare had a line for it:
  The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
  But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
  Members of the House—past and present—bear the guilt and the shame of having given away the powers by which we might otherwise have been able to help our fellow countrymen. In so doing, they gave away that which was not theirs to give away in the first place—the sovereign right of the British people to be governed by their own laws made in their own Parliament by their own people.
  Instead, we are now run by a collective. How else can one describe a regime in which the centre tells the fishermen what they may catch, in what quantities, in which sea areas, where they may land their catches and, effectively, at what price? That is all done in the name of conservation, but not a single fisherman at sea today does not have to throw back dead into the sea more fish than he lands.
  In the Russian republics, collectivisation of agriculture failed; in North Korea, to this day, people starve because of the failure of agricultural collectivisation that is distinguished from the EU model only in so much as, whereas the Korean model has brought about shortages, the European model has created surpluses. At what cost?
  Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gill: No, I will not give way.
  The European model has been carried out at the cost of greater demands on the taxpayer, higher prices to the consumer and a burden of bureaucracy that is beyond belief to those who recall farming as it was before the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend do me the courtesy of giving way?
  Mr. Gill: No, I will not give way.
  Last November, in early-day motion 62, I called on the Government
  to open urgent negotiations with other EU countries to bring about a change in the treaties so as to make country of origin labelling mandatory throughout the Community.
  1074
  I called for such labelling for meat—plain and simple. However, what we get is yet another bureaucratic nightmare.
  According to a report in the Farmers Guardian on 21 April
  all beef sold in member states will have to be labelled by country of origin from September 1.
  So far, so good. However, the report adds:
  The new measures will also mean all beef sold will have to be labelled with the abattoir number and country of slaughter.
  The label will also have to record the date of slaughter, the reference identification number of the animal and the category of animal—heifer, steer or bull.
  Ministers also agreed from January 2002…the beef label will have to include details of the place of birth and fattening of the animal along with its slaughter details.
  What do Governments—and individual politicians who should know better—say about all those unsatisfactory matters?
  Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend will give way, I shall tell him.
  Mr. Gill: I shall give way to a former Agriculture Minister.
  Mr. Baldry: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for doing me the courtesy of giving way. Is his powerful argument advocating that we should leave the common agricultural policy or that we should leave the European Union altogether? The measures that he is proposing are clearly contrary to Community law, so the logic of his argument must be either that we leave the common agricultural policy or the European Union altogether. Which is it?
  Mr. Gill: The short answer is that I advocate repatriation of control over agricultural policy to this country and to this Parliament, so that the people who understand British agriculture, are responsible for British agriculture and have to face their constituents who are involved in British agriculture can give satisfaction in a way that we simply cannot do under the present regime.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me for being so blunt, but people like him say that we must reform the common agricultural policy. The question for them is how they would do that. Do they not recall how Agenda 2000 was emasculated by the vote of the French; do they not understand that, unless there is unanimity, the fundamentals of the CAP cannot be changed; and do they not understand that, if reform is achieved by qualified majority voting, it is as likely as not that the matter will be challenged in the European Court by countries alleging discrimination and will be struck down?
  Being nice to the Germans, the French, the Italians or the Spaniards is not the answer. The point is that what we can do and how we can do it are all prescribed in the treaties. There is no latitude or tolerance; there is only the law.
  My question to the Government is this: by what means or methods will they bring about any fundamental or meaningful reform? Let me remind the House that a collective can, by definition, only act in the interests of the collective. It self-evidently cannot act in the separate interests of its component parts. The notion that the

  1075
  agricultural collective can deliver what is best for Britain is a delusion. Equally, it is absurd to believe that it can deliver what is best for the agriculture industry of any other individual member state. If I am wrong, those on one or other Front Bench will have an opportunity at the end of the debate to tell me why.
  My second question is addressed to those on the Conservative Front Bench. They will know that my credentials as a Conservative are impeccable. I have been a Conservative all my life; I was born into a Conservative family and I am a Conservative by conviction and consistently so. I am opposed to big government and state interference; I believe in individual freedom, low taxes and free markets. I am not a collectivist; I reject the whole concept of collectivism.
  The question for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench is why our party, the British Conservative party, continues to support a policy, reformed or unreformed—it makes no difference—that owes more to communism than to conservatism. Members of the shadow Cabinet should not be surprised at this question; they have heard it before and they will not be surprised to hear me say that they will hear it again unless they recognise that collectivism and conservatism are mutually exclusive. One is the antithesis of the other. My party will not, and cannot, prosper until it comes to terms with that ineluctable truth.
  Only politicians, by dint of that collectivist policy, could have brought about a situation in which every sector of British agriculture is depressed. It does not matter how the British farmer or fisherman votes, as he gets the same whether he votes Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, Conservative or Scottish National party. He gets the common agricultural policy, which is effectively decided by people whom he does not elect and cannot hold to account. However he votes, he gets what is decided for him by the collective.
  That cannot be right. As a Conservative, I say categorically that it is not right. Conservatives believe in choice, diversity and—not least—democracy. At the next general election, I trust that we as a party will put that before the British people, especially those working in our once-great farming and fishing industries, for whom there is currently no light at the end of a very long and very dark tunnel.
  The motion that we are considering speaks of negotiating
  an outcome which takes account of the interest of UK producers, consumers and tax-payers alike.
  That is platitudinous nonsense. The CAP has failed on every count and has done so comprehensively. It has failed producers, consumers, taxpayers and the nation. The crisis in agriculture is not new: it has not just appeared from nowhere. The current state of affairs has been building for the past 28 years, ever since we joined the benighted CAP. For half that time, and throughout my membership of the House, I have consistently warned that it would all end in tears, and so it has.
  I shall end with a quotation from Pericles for my colleagues:
  Remember that Prosperity can only be for the free, and that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Given the enormous damage that divisions on Europe did to the Conservative party at the election, I am pleased to hear that such divisions are clearly still very much alive. Long may that continue.
  I shall make a brief contribution to our debate, prefacing my remarks with a criticism of all parties involved in it. Regrettably, our debates on fundamental issues affecting the governing of our country through the European Union are ill attended by all political parties. Everyone should take that criticism on board.
  Anyone interested in the issues that we are discussing knows that farmers throughout the country face real problems. For three years, there have been substantial falls in farming income. Despite farming's image as a prosperous industry providing for prosperous communities, such a reduction in income is bound to have a lasting and disastrous impact on farming communities. I have talked to local farmers, and those in their 30s and 40s say that they regret going into the industry, and would not choose it if they were starting out today. That is a serious cause for concern.
  The problems that we are experiencing are by no means unique to this country; in many ways, they are a worldwide phenomenon. Low world commodity prices are the result of over-supply, following the collapse of import markets in Russia and the far east. There is nothing that this Government—or, indeed, any other—can do directly to manage that position more effectively.
  However, farming problems are worse in Britain than elsewhere for two principal reasons. First, the BSE crisis is having a continuing impact on the livestock sector. Whether that crisis was the result of accident or error—the inquiry will throw light on that question—it is indisputably having the single most serious impact on any part of British industry, probably since the second world war. We are still suffering the consequences.
  The second factor peculiar to Britain is the sterling-euro exchange rate, which has resulted in cheaper imports, especially food, being sucked in and our own food exports becoming more expensive and less competitive. CAP payment rates are calculated in euros, so there is a further impact on farm incomes.
  We are experiencing both a worldwide phenomenon and particular problems in Britain, and the Government have responded exactly as we would expect a responsible and sensitive Government to respond. From the Downing street summit emerged the action plan providing more than £200 million in additional support for the pig industry and dairy farmers. That package includes all the agri-monetary aid permissible under EU rules, and it is worth contrasting it with what happened under the Conservative Government. The Conservatives criticise us, but since entering office the Labour Government have, under those rules, granted £551 million of aid through that mechanism, That aid was not provided under the Conservatives. Additional support is being given to hill farming, where some of the worst problems are experienced. Rural development plans, with matched funding of £472 million, have been drawn up. All that adds up to short-term assistance that provides a breathing space and sensitive support for longer-term restructuring and diversification in farming.

  1077
  During debates such as this, the Government say that they are responding to the problems, and the Opposition say that the situation is dreadful and the Government are doing nothing. It is therefore instructive to listen to those who are directly affected—those working in farming. After the Downing street summit, Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers Union, gave due recognition to the import of the decisions that had been made. Even the Country Landowners Association—not one of the Government's natural supporters—said that the summit and the resulting aid package provided the short-term help for which it and the industry had been asking.
  Mr. Hayes: To cut across the partisan interpretation of the aid packages, will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely what the Government have done to support arable farmers such as those in my constituency, especially tenant arable farmers? He talks about hill farmers being helped, but tenant arable farmers are in at least as bad a position as they are.
  Mr. Rammell: I throw back the question: what did the previous Government do? To pretend that farming does not face major long-term problems does a disservice to farmers, and to pretend that any Government, past or present, have to hand all the solutions to those problems and the money to implement them is false and does a disservice to those whom we represent. When I talk to farmers in my constituency, I find that although they have been traumatised by the changes that have occurred and are concerned about the future, they are realistic: they know that there is no quick fix to the problems and they respect and support the Government's course of action.
  It is instructive to contrast the Labour Government's actions in respect of the problems facing farming with the Conservatives' actions in similar circumstances. Processes of economic restructuring and change are always going on in all parts of our society, and the role of Government in those circumstances is to help and support people through that process of change. Under the previous Government, we experienced restructuring of the mining industry, in which a process of economic change and industrial transformation was taking place. To say that that Government stood on the sidelines gives them too much credit; they exacerbated the process and made it more damaging to and difficult for the communities it affected. Contrast that with the Labour Government's actions and we see a very different, far more sensitive, approach to change.
  The crisis in farming causes us to reflect on the purposes of agricultural support, specifically in the context of the CAP. The CAP was created in the post-war years, when a wholly different set of circumstances prevailed. The system of production subsidies was established to insure against food shortages. That was a legitimate reaction following the war, but we have different problems now.
  The modern justification for agricultural support is founded less on the need for food security and more on the environmental, social and economic role of agriculture in rural areas. The Government are right to focus on that and to support the process of change and diversification.
  Some progress was made at the Berlin summit, where we secured a package of reform worth about £65 a household to Britain—about £500 million. That was a
  1078
  new achievement, but it is clearly nothing like enough. There would be cross-party consensus on the fact that we need to go much further, especially in the context of the challenge of European Union enlargement. All parties are signed up to that and, on the face of it, support it, but the major problem is that the common agricultural policy was certainly not designed for 27 different countries—indeed, there is a question mark over whether it was designed for 15.
  Under the current rules, if Poland joined tomorrow, according to the most recent figures that I have seen, it would soak up 60 per cent. of CAP funds. That statistic clearly underlines the absolute necessity, if we are serious about enlargement—which we should be, for a whole series of reasons—to reform the CAP further.
  We must ask ourselves seriously and honestly how we are to achieve that reform. About a year ago, I went on a European Scrutiny Committee visit to Germany and talked to the German ambassador and German politicians. I was struck by the significant consensus between British and German politicians on the reforms that are needed. As Conservative Members have said, the French Government appear to be especially conservative in their attitude and actions on such issues.
  From those discussions, I got a real sense that we had missed an opportunity over the years because we were not fully engaged in the European Union and were not the active partners that we are now. We missed the chance to build bridges, especially with the Germans, and to move away from a Franco-German axis directing the Union's affairs towards the more broadly based leadership in which Britain plays a part and can secure the significant changes that we need.
  I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) about the problems with the byzantine complexity of the current common agricultural policy rules, the forms that farmers have to fill in and the processes through which they have to go. That criticism could be made of many European Union funding programmes. One almost needs a degree in form filling to get through the process.
  I do not for a minute minimise the problems of fraud in the European Union, but a careful reading of the report of the Court of Auditors shows that often we are talking not about fraud but about genuine mistakes, because people do not understand the system and have an honest problem with the forms. Liberal Democrat Members seem to agree with that. We constantly debate the issues and highlight the fact that the processes are far too complex and difficult and cause honest people to make honest mistakes, yet we never seem to be able to resolve the problem. The Government are arguing for the changes that will help us to achieve that.
  We need also to focus on the changes that are needed in farming generally, and on organic farming in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth commented on that subject. Consumers want more organic farming. I do not pretend that that is a majority view, but increasingly consumers want wider choices in the food that they eat. The Government have made some progress. In the last year of the Conservative Government, only £600,000 was spent on supporting conversion to organic production. We are spending £11 million a year, and there are indications that that will double in the next four years.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree

  1079
  that if the organic farming movement is to have any chance of success, a great deal will depend on the labelling of those products? Does he consider it unfortunate that attempts to reform the general labelling of agricultural products have been blocked by the Government?
  Mr. Rammell: I do not believe that such attempts have been blocked by the Government. The labelling of agricultural produce is within the competence of the European Union, and we must get support to achieve those changes. That is what the Government are arguing for, and what we should all try to achieve.
  There has been increased support for organic farming, and still more is needed. I hope that as a result of the comprehensive spending review, there will be further movement in that direction.
  I shall comment on some of the alternative strategies and tactics proposed by the Conservative party to support the farming industry. We heard the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) advocating what might be described as the unilateralist option—for example, that we should go for a ban on imports because we are worried about what the EU is doing through the CAP, that we should adopt unilateral action on food labelling, and that we should introduce state aids that are illegal under EU law.
  Whether that is right or wrong in principle, it does not work. We need only think back to the beef ban that the previous Conservative Government initiated at the height of the BSE crisis to see that such measures do not work. The beef war was initiated in a fervour of enthusiasm, and lasted for 31 days. Even the previous Conservative Government, divided to the core as they were on the subject of Europe, realised that that is not how results are achieved in the EU or anywhere else.
  The further problem with arguing for unilateralist solutions is that we have more to lose than other countries, with £10 billion-worth of British food and drink exports supporting British jobs and British communities. All that would be put at risk.
  I turn to the relationship between Britain's attitude to the single currency and to the CAP. I support the Government's position. They are in favour of British membership of the single currency in principle, and have set out five realistic and sensible economic criteria to be met. Once those have been met, the Government will recommend to the British people in a referendum that we should join. However, I know in my bones that some of the problems that fanning is facing, and that British manufacturing is also facing, are caused by an overvalued pound. Farmers and manufacturers recognise that.
  Were we to adopt the Opposition's head-in-the-sand approach and argue that we should stay out of the single currency indefinitely, regardless of the economic circumstances or the possible economic benefits, we would be promising British farming and manufacturing industry a permanent overvaluation of our currency, causing us major problems in competitiveness, which would have a direct impact on jobs and communities.
  When I discuss these issues with farmers in my constituency, they understand that. Farmers' views on the single currency are far more positive than those in the country as a whole. Because of farmers' experience of the consequences of the argument that we should stay permanently out of the single currency, I believe that the
  1080
  National Farmers Union has a role in arguing the opposite case, and turning the tables on the Conservative party when it advocates saving the pound. The consequence of saving the pound would be the loss of jobs, as people will increasingly recognise if we put off indefinitely dealing with the question of British membership of the single currency.
  Let me comment on a couple of points raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) presented the familiar argument—I have heard it here before—that there is a determination to head towards the establishment of a united Europe, in which we will lose all sovereignty. The hon. Gentleman nods, confirming what I have said.
  Having talked to politicians and civil servants throughout the European Union, and having read every available document on the subject, I see nothing like majority support for such a future for the European Union. I see nothing like majority support for total qualified majority voting, tax harmonisation or any of the other evil spectres raised by Opposition Members.
  The hon. Gentleman contrasted the support provided for farmers in the Republic of Ireland with that provided for those in the north of Ireland. Clearly, that will result partly from the response to different levels of economic growth. However, I also think that other countries have been more successful than Britain in securing what they need for their people through the European Union, partly because they have been more actively engaged in the process over the past 20 to 25 years. They have participated more fully, and have argued more effectively in fighting their corner.
  I respect the passion and conviction shown by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I disagree entirely with his analysis, but I genuinely believe that someone who did what he did during the last years of the Conservative Government must sincerely believe what he is saying. As I have said, however, I disagree with his analysis. He suggested that the problem of farming in Britain and the problem of the common agricultural policy were really problems of sovereignty. According to him, if we were not in the European Union and were not partners in the common agricultural policy, we would not have these difficulties.
  I reject that completely. If we were outside Europe—if we were outside the common agricultural policy and the European Union—we would still face the problem of world over-supply. We would still face the problem of an overvaluation of the British pound. We would still be dealing with the legacies of BSE. The suggestion that if we depart from the CAP and leave the European Union all the problems of agriculture will suddenly be resolved is at best fool's gold, and at worst gives farming communities hope that is not justified.
  When the hon. Member for Ludlow was talking about reform of the CAP, I was astonished by a comment made, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I am sorry to mention this now, because—although I did not realise it until just now—the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is no longer present. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman, who is a vice-chair of the Conservative party, say, "That is the Vichy argument". The ill judged use of that language of war shows me more than anything how far the Conservative party has moved from the mainstream on these issues, and it will have to face up to that one day.

  1081
  I support the Government's aims, which the National Farmers Union recognise as being in the best interests of diversifying our farming communities and providing the realistic and longer-term support that farmers need.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) that it is disappointing that more Members have not taken part in the debate. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is disappearing; I am going to mention him, and I do not wish to do him the discourtesy of mentioning him when he has no opportunity to respond. As he is keen to leave, I shall make my point to him now and comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow later.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during his powerful speech, in which he argued for the repatriation of agriculture and fisheries policy from the EU to the United Kingdom. As he knows, we could do that only if we left the EU. He hopes that that will be Conservative party policy by the next general election. What will he and those of my hon. Friends who support his view do if, as I suspect, that does not become party policy? Will they support our manifesto, notwithstanding the fact that repatriation is not part of our policy, or will they walk away from our party? It would be interesting to hear the views of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who agree with my hon. Friend, otherwise the electorate are likely to be confused about the Conservative party's stance on that crucial issue.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend takes the argument a little too far. The Government have tried for many months to achieve substantial reform of the CAP. They have failed to do so, but that does not mean that that policy was wrong. Equally, those of us who advocate that British farming interests would be best served by a withdrawal from the CAP would naturally pursue that as a policy objective. The fact that that objective might not be achieved does not undermine its validity.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend must not delude himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow used the word "repatriation." One cannot have it all ways. It is intellectually honest to argue for repatriation—there is no reason why one should not do so—but one must recognise the consequences. One cannot argue for repatriating agriculture and fisheries policy without recognising that that would effectively mean withdrawal from the CAP and the common fisheries policy, and that is achievable only by withdrawal from the EU. Everyone understands what the argument is code for—we are not children. My hon. Friends have urged that that policy should be part of the manifesto at the next general election. Will they follow our manifesto regardless of whether that policy is part of it or will they walk away from the party? That is a simple question.
  Mr. Swayne: Shall I answer it?
  Mr. Baldry: I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's answer.
  Mr. Swayne: Undoubtedly, I would continue to support the party and the manifesto, but I do not go so far
  1082
  as my hon. Friend. It is appropriate to pursue a policy of repatriation that falls short of withdrawal from the EU. They are not necessarily one and the same.
  Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, but if he thinks about it he will realise that it is intellectually impossible to pursue a policy of repatriation without advocating withdrawal from the EU. I am pleased that he and his colleagues will support the manifesto, which, I suspect, will state that we should continue to be part of the EU and argue our case from within. Indeed, I had hoped that the Government had proposed the debate because they wanted to provide the House with a genuine opportunity to discuss agricultural matters.
  Mr. Gill: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is arguing that no matter how bad it gets—no matter how serious the position for British fishermen or farmers—we will hang on to the CAP, come hell or high water. That is totally bizarre. Such a policy would not have great appeal to the British electorate. By using such extreme terms, he is being somewhat disingenuous. He knows that the inevitable consequence of repatriation is not withdrawal from the EU.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for Banbury has been helpful in allowing interventions, but time is getting on and a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Interventions will squeeze out opportunities for those hon. Members.
  Mr. Baldry: I have not been speaking for long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not intend to do so. Some Labour Members spoke for as long as 40 minutes, and these are important issues. The House must judge whether my comments have been extreme; I thought that they were perfectly moderate.
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, we are members of the EU. That decision was taken by this House, and by the country in a referendum. Part of our membership of the EU is membership of the CAP. It behoves Ministers and Opposition Members to argue and campaign for the sort of CAP we wish to see. That, quite rightly, is what Ministers should do. We will criticise Ministers when we feel that they fall short of what we wish to achieve in the CAP.
  However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will assure us when he winds up that it is not and will not be the policy of the Conservative party to withdraw from the CAP or, by implication, from the EU. That would send a destructive message to the people of this country and to our colleagues throughout Europe.
  I was a Minister when we had a policy of non-co-operation with Europe over beef. That was brought about by considerable frustration at the fact that Heads of Government from other member states refused to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) an honest and straightforward answer. Some would say that it was a matter for the Agriculture Minister; others that it was for the Health Minister; others that it was for Parliament. We were making little progress.
  As a consequence of that frustration—and to ensure that the EU understood how deeply these matters were felt here—we had, for a while, a policy of non-

  1083
  co-operation with the EU as a whole. At the end of the day, it did not necessarily advance our case very much. It made the point, but thereafter it caused a number of colleagues within the EU who might otherwise have been sympathetic to us to feel that we were not approaching the EU in the way and by the rules that we would have expected from others. However, that is history. We are members of the EU, and it behoves us to collaborate.
  Earlier today, we had Trade and Industry questions, at which great concern was raised, rightly, about the future of Dagenham and the potential loss of 2,000 jobs there. Also, we have had debates on Rover recently, when the House has been full. The National Farmers Union estimates that, this year, we are likely to lose 15,000 jobs in agriculture and industries allied to it. That is an enormous number to go from one industry in one year.
  The Minister chided me when I said that the crisis in the dairy industry was probably the worst in recorded history. I do not think that there has been a time in the history of UK agriculture—certainly not since the depression of the 1930s—when the prospects for all sectors of agriculture have been as grim as they are at present.
  Part of the reason for that is the strength of sterling, the weakness of the euro and the relationship of the two. In dairy prices, for every 1 per cent. rise in the value of the pound in relation to the euro, 0.6p comes off the price of a pint of milk. I think that, of the 9p decrease in the milk price in the past year, 5p can be attributed to the relationship between sterling and the euro.
  Interestingly, today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry used a form of words that was rather different from that used recently by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and it may well herald a different approach by the Government. Until recently, the Government's approach to the sterling-euro relationship has been to say, "There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. One just has to accept it. Manufacturing industry and the dairy industry will have to accept it." Today, the Secretary of State changed that line by saying that sterling's strength in relation to the euro was unsustainable, and that, sooner or later, the international financial communities will see that sterling's value is unsustainable.
  Although that may herald a change of tack by the Government, we have to recognise that not only United Kingdom manufacturing industry and my constituents who work at Cowley, but dairy farmers and others have been suffering from the strength of the pound—or the weakness of the euro, or the relationship between the two—and the difficulty of exporting. We should never forget that other sectors are suffering too.
  We should also recognise that particularly the dairy industry has been facing other difficulties, not least the break-up of Milk Marque and the creation of three new organisations, which will find it increasingly difficult to compete. However, not all is lost. I simply draw the dairy industry's attention to the fact that, as one can see in supermarkets, there is a huge market yet to be won in products such as yoghurt and other value-added dairy products, the value of which is about £1 billion. Almost all those products are imported from firms such as Miillers in Germany and elsewhere. It is a huge market.
  Mr. Paterson: May I correct my hon. Friend? Mullers has invested £65 million in Market Drayton, in my
  1084
  constituency, and makes 800 million pots of yoghurt from milk produced at farms in the surrounding 40 miles. It is a marvellous lesson in how we should be adding value to the basic dairy product of milk—which is the point that I think my hon. Friend is trying to make.
  Mr. Baldry: It is indeed. I am very glad of my hon. Friend's correction, as I was relying for my information on the report by the Select Committee on Agriculture on milk pricing. As MÜllers' investment shows, we shall be able to guarantee jobs and ensure that we maximise the liquid milk price by concentrating on value-added products. That would surely benefit UK farmers, and I hope that other similar firms will invest here.
  The Government can do more than we have heard described today to help UK farmers. Although the Minister said some pleasant words about deregulation, just recently, an enormous number of environmental regulations have been imposed on the farming industry, including the groundwater regulations and the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations. Farmers have also been threatened with nitrate regulations, and a pesticides tax that would be £55 per tonne, which is simply not sustainable. The Government have temporarily withdrawn the pesticides tax proposal, but they have not said that they will permanently withdraw it. I simply hope that the Ministry and the Government will make every effort to ensure that farmers are not overburdened with regulations, and that regulations are introduced sympathetically. When farming is in difficulty, those burdens have a disproportionate cost.
  Similarly, the Minister made much of diversification in the countryside. However, that possibility will be dependent largely on the way in which planners and the planning authorities approach it. Farming enterprises have a new difficulty when they seek to diversify farm barns or other buildings. They are now told by local planners that their proposals are not sustainable, because, as farm buildings tend to be in the countryside, some way from centres of population, people may have to drive to them. A farmer in my constituency wished to convert some buildings that were going to be used by a local physiotherapist to provide a service for a large number of people in the area, but planning permission was denied.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I am not going to give way. I have been waiting since 1.30 pm and I have been speaking for only 15 minutes.
  The Government's policies on diversification will come to nought if they cannot encourage planners to be more sympathetic.
  I am conscious that a number of my hon. Friends have also been waiting for a long time and wish to speak, so I shall come to my final point. Several farmers in my constituency are concerned about the IACS cheques. Debates on agriculture are always partly in code, and I apologise for that, but the Minister will understand what I am talking about. The issue is incredibly important for the cash flow of cereal farmers. They usually receive their IACS cheque at the end of November, but there are concerns that they will not receive it until March of the following year. That will disrupt their cash flow considerably. I hope that the Minister will assure that House that the situation will not change.

  1085
  While it is clearly good to make form-filling easier by taking advantage of computerisation and the internet, a large number of farmers do not have computers. It would be greatly resented if an increase in computerisation was simply code for cutting the number of regional offices and the opportunities for farmers to have face-to-face contact with MAFF officials to help them with form-filling. We have heard repeatedly that if farmers get their IACS form wrong, the financial penalties are draconian. There is no appeal or remedy, only a total financial loss. The network of MAFF regional offices has been greatly respected and appreciated over the years.
  These are grim times for UK agriculture. The Government have not made the progress that they should have done. We are not alone in saying that. A House of Commons Library research paper on the Agenda 2000 reforms says that the result was a disappointment to the British Government and the dairy industry. There is no sign that the EU is willing to abolish dairy quotas. Even the existing commitments are worth little, since there is ample scope for change of mind before 2005.
  The Minister is always courteous and always comes with soft words, but farmers are interested in what his actions mean. They want money in the bank and financial support for the farming community during the greatest crisis for agriculture in living memory. The farming industry is looking to the Government to give a positive lead and real assistance. If they cannot do that, the 15,000 jobs that may be lost in agriculture this year will be nothing compared with the likely job losses in years to come.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: This debate has been interesting for a variety of reasons, not least because of the bout of in-fighting that broke out on the Opposition Benches following the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
  I might not be quite as much of an Euro-enthusiast as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), but I think it fair to say that most farmers in the United Kingdom are realistic, and they know that their future, and the future of the UK, depends on our continuing to be a member of the European Union. However, there is a great deal of frustration that institutions in Europe, with which this Government and others have to deal positively and robustly, are not always seen to be open and accountable regarding the needs of British agriculture. Surely there is a need for a lighter touch as far as European regulations are concerned. I say that not from a Euro-sceptic but from a realistic point of view.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so my contribution will be short. I welcome the outcome of the recent agricultural summit. The package has been welcomed by, among others, the president of the National Farmers Union, who described it as going a long way and giving a clear signal that the Government believe that British agriculture has a crucial role. The package has also received a welcome among my constituents, many of whom are involved in farming. Although times continue to be extremely difficult for fanners, things are improving somewhat.
  1086
  This is a Government who have listened to farmers. The aid packages alone that have been available during the Government's time in office, which amount to £1 billion in extra spending, are testimony to the fact that Labour's claim to be the genuine party of farmers is correct. I am particularly pleased that, so far during this Parliament, the Government have put into hill farming subsidies to the value of £700 million.
  The action plan is to be welcomed. The removal of so many of the regulations that have been an irritation to farmers, and a disproportionate cost, is to be welcomed. I am particularly glad that the Government have committed themselves to retaining hill farming subsidies at the increased level for the next year.
  I wish to concentrate on three issues—the milk sector, modulation, and the need for a long-term strategy, including the role of the Treasury and other Departments in delivering that strategy. Although livestock farming predominates in my constituency—the vast majority of my constituency is within the less-favoured area—dairy farming in the Vale of Clwyd has none the less been an important industry. Clearly, dairy farmers are in an almost unsustainable position. The figures demonstrate beyond peradventure that the costs of production are becoming higher than the price realised on the market. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that many producers are using the intervention milk price equivalent, which is no more than a floor, as approximating to the price that farmers should expect at farm gates.
  It is a vicious circle, and it is difficult to see a way out. More liquid milk is going on the market because more imported processed products are coming in owing to the uncompetitive position of the pound in relation to the euro. It is a vicious circle, because it means that farmers are getting less for the liquid milk. As one farmer told me recently, "You can't stop milking. You can't put the milk back in the cow." It is, of course, a perishable product, and it is true that many processors are taking advantage of the situation. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister of State accept that there continues to be enormous frustration and indignation that processors are exploiting a bad situation? I ask her to take up that matter when she replies. The report of the Office of Fair Trading will soon be forthcoming, and I hope that we shall see some Government action to deal with what are perceived to be the unfair practices of supermarkets and larger processing conglomerates. Producers must get a fair price for their product.
  Farmers in my constituency and in other parts of Wales are getting out of dairy because they cannot make a living. They are going into sheep. However, that in turn is depressing the market for lamb. Perhaps that demonstrates how interrelated these problems are and how essential it is to develop a strategy.
  The strong pound is undoubtedly having a deleterious effect on farming, as on manufacturing industry. There is the welcome news today that the pound has dropped substantially against the euro. It is to be hoped that that trend will continue.
  I accept that there is little that the Government can do in terms of the macro-economic position, but surely we must have a strategy that enables producers to form co-operatives and to add value to their products so as to

  1087
  compete and make their product viable. That is a role for the common agricultural policy and for the Government and devolved bodies.
  Milk and milk products need to be promoted more vigorously. I am not quite up to date with the Government's position on free school milk, but I understand that the Americans have done much work on promoting milk in their schools. They take the view that, for every dollar spent on promotion, they get back $4 in extra sales. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State deal with the issue? It seems that there would be a healthy demand for milk if the product were served and marketed in an attractive manner. I do not mean supplying it in lukewarm, tatty plastic bottles on school playgrounds.
  In principle, modulation is to be welcomed, but many farmers in my constituency—I am sure that this applies to small farmers especially—are perturbed that it has been applied across the board and that everyone is affected by it. However, the recycling effect—the money that comes back—will apply to only a few, under the so-called "horizontal measures" under the CAP. It is not possible for everyone to go organic or to diversify, especially for those who are at a pretty high altitude in the Welsh hills. Will the Government reconsider the position?
  Surely the Treasury has a responsibility. I do not believe that it is solely a European responsibility to provide extra funding to enable the industry to restructure. I am particularly interested to know the Government's view on this issue. The French use a sophisticated support method, which involves their social security system and other organs of Government, to prevent rural depopulation. The Treasury has a role in helping to cover the additional costs of administering the date-based export scheme and tagging. The Treasury should not absolve itself of responsibility simply because we are dealing with agriculture and the CAP is predominant when it comes to making policy.
  The Ministry of Defence also has a responsibility when it comes to sourcing British lamb products. Some 90 per cent. of lamb consumed by our military forces comes from outside the UK, which causes great alarm and anger among hill farmers, particularly in Wales. The Ministry should redress that problem.
  A long-term strategy for farmers is essential. They need to know not just how they will survive until next year, but how they and the whole industry will develop over the next 20 years. I am confident that the Government are adopting the right policies and can claim to be the genuine party of farming.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The outcome of the negotiations held during the Berlin summit was not as radical as the original proposals. A 20 per cent. cut in support prices for cereals had been suggested, but the agreed cut was 15 per cent. in two steps. For beef, it was proposed that there should be a 30 per cent. reduction, and the final reduction was 20 per cent. Although a reduction of 15 per cent. was accepted for cereals, it will take place five years later than planned.
  As a result, the European Union will appear more protectionist at the start of trade talks, which will raise doubts about its ability to meet its commitments on market access and subsidised exports. The reforms will not placate critics of the common agricultural policy inside or outside
  1088
  the EU. Franz Fischler, the European Commissioner, has emphasised the importance of what the Commission calls the European model of agriculture. He describes a model
  based on competitive, multifunctional and sustainable agriculture throughout the EU.
  It is, he says,
  highly diversified…and supports and safeguards our unique countryside and a stable environment.
  The model is supposed to produce renewables, provide environmental services, protect the countryside, maintain the vitality of rural areas and respond to social expectations concerning the origin and traceability of food, ecology and ethical issues such as animal welfare. That is the strategy that is supposed to protect, or even enlarge, the so-called "green box" in the face of continuing attacks on CAP market prices.
  By increasing the proportion of the agricultural fund allocated to co-financed measures, the EU is limiting its potential future liabilities from enlargement. However, because of a lack of clear opinion on what further reforms will occur—particularly as a result of enlargement—there is great uncertainty and worry among farmers in Britain. I agree entirely with the interesting and well-researched speech made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I had intended to speak on retirement and new entrants, but need not do so as I cannot add to what he said.
  By and large, the farming industry is, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) said, opposed to modulation—at least as it is currently framed. In principle, no one argues against modulation, but, according to the discussions that I have had with unions and individuals, it is being canvassed in a way that is totally unacceptable. It is suggested that there will be a 2.5 per cent. cut in grant in the first year, rising to 4.5 per cent. in 2006–07. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the Treasury is then supposed to contribute £1 for every £1 modulated, so long as the Treasury agrees. We in Wales well know about pound-for-pound match funding—the Chancellor is pretty reticent about committing himself to it. After about six years, an extra £78 million for rural development will be available for Wales alone—if the match funding is provided.
  I am sure that modulation is being introduced for the best possible reasons, but the formula that has been chosen is disappointing. It appears to hit those most in need. It clearly needs to be better thought out. The industry would benefit from a tapered formula, whereby larger farms are top-sliced most and smaller family farms and those with high labour units receive more subsidy. That would help to level out the industry. A formula similar to that operates in France, where the size of the farm and—importantly—the number of workers are taken into account. The money is then focused on the poorer areas that are most in need. If such thinking were employed, it would be extremely helpful to many farmers in Wales.
  However, the caveat about the money from the Treasury remains. For example, objective 1 areas in Wales are entitled to 75 per cent. assistance, but we understand that the Chancellor is willing to give only 50 per cent. If we do not receive sufficient backing from the Treasury, there will be a problem.

  1089
  There is general consensus that the agriculture industry is in crisis—as is the rural economy. To be fair, fanning unions, politicians on all sides and—more important—farmers themselves welcomed the Government's aid package, announced after the farming summit at the end of March. However, that provided only a breathing space for farmers; it does not tackle the crux of the problem. The Government have tackled the symptoms and not the disease. One part of the disease is the strength of the pound.
  The current CAP arrangements are scheduled to run until 2006. They do not satisfy farmers, land managers, consumers, environmentalists or any other rural interests. The Berlin Agenda 2000 agreement does not adequately provide for enlargement of the EU or for the EU' s current and prospective World Trade Organisation commitments on agriculture. The CAP must evolve from a commodity-based production subsidy to a more integrated rural policy. Such a policy is needed to promote viable, stable and competitive agriculture. The industry needs a period of stability—that has been missing for many years.
  I am glad that the Government were recently willing to concede the allocation of funds for agri-monetary compensation, because there are, of course, serious economic imbalances caused by the high value of the pound against the euro and so on. However, the £66 million set aside for that compensation—as an attempt to level the differences between the pound and the euro—is not enough. Farmers unions were calling for £215 million.
  However, throwing money at the problem is not good enough, as I shall explain. The amount set aside is tiny compared with the estimated £3 billion—according to The Times—that the industry has lost because of the strength of the pound. That £66 million offers a breathing space—a slight relief, but nothing more.
  During the farming summit, the Prime Minister admitted that a start had been made. He said that
  what we are doing here today is a start. It will not end the painful restructuring of the industry that has seen so much real hardship. But it will offer solutions to problems; it will set out a vision; and it will answer some of the key concerns.
  I regret that that vision has yet to become apparent. We need an integrated rural strategy, with a healthy agriculture industry at its core. Yes, we need the creation of work, diversification, the relaxation of planning regulations, sustainable transport and so on. We need a vision that comes in an all-embracing package, but it must have a strong agriculture industry at its heart.
  Something will have to be done about the artificially high level of sterling. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred to a change of attitude. That blip might be of some assistance, but a more determined effort must be made.
  The discussions on the Berlin Agenda 2000 did not give enough consideration to enlargement. There is much uncertainty about enlargement, the role of the WTO, the future of the CAP and whether the industry is sustainable. Of course, the future of our rural communities is also uncertain. We need to consider a truly integrated rural policy. The Government must press the European Union to redirect the direct crop and livestock payments towards rural development regulation.
  Further CAP reform will expose agriculture to the volatility of international markets. Every farmer to whom I speak says, "I want to go out into the marketplace;
  1090
  I don't want to be paid for staying at home doing nothing; I want to be back in the market so that I can sell my produce for what it's really worth." Farmers in Britain are not afraid of competition, but, because of the way in which the CAP has been structured, it will not come overnight. It certainly will not come in isolation from the other necessary reforms for rural areas. Ultimately, however, there must be a safety net to even out the extremities of farming incomes. We have heard much about incomes today, so I will not pursue that point. However, it is clear that there is a crisis.
  One part of the disease is the strength of the pound, but we must remove the impediments to rural development that are embedded in the current planning and tax systems. Those problems must be high on the Government's agenda. I was pleased to hear the Minister for the Environment say that they will be highlighted in the forthcoming White Paper—let us hope so and that the White Paper appears soon. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday that planning legislation should be relaxed to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to develop sustainably in rural areas and to assist in the overall pattern of rural regeneration. I was pleased with his reply and I hope that it is a precursor to a positive White Paper on which we can all build. The small and medium-sized enterprise sector needs assistance. There is no reason on earth why it cannot flower in rural areas and become part of the rural regeneration scene.
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the strength of sterling was detrimental to manufacturing industry. Obviously, it has just as bad—and probably worse—effects on the farming industry. There is a consensus that farming must become more viable and, in some areas, diversification is the answer. However, in other areas, the answer is farms coming together and working as co-operatives.
  I ask the Government to do something urgently about the value of the pound, and to draw down some pro tem relief from the substantial agri-monetary compensation scheme. Above all, will they please consider a better, strategic and overall view of rural regeneration? At the heart of all that is a healthy agricultural industry.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: The debate has been characterised by an acknowledgment on both sides of the Chamber of the nature and the severity of the crisis facing agriculture. To give the Government credit—it pains me to do so—the Cabinet Office report on rural Britain, which was published in February this year, acknowledges that
  agriculture, the countryside's most visible and most typical activity, is facing major problems and that many sectors and people within it are facing real crisis.
  There is no doubt about the severity of the crisis.
  I am surprised, however, that the report does not address the issue of sparsity in the countryside and specifically does not accept the need—the Government show no sign of recognising this—to allow sparsity to be given greater significance when it comes to the allocation of Government grants and the provision of public services.
  Not all the problems are of the Government's making. There is no question but that there are long-term structural problems in agriculture across Europe. Some sectors have

  1091
  over-supply—supply exceeds demand—and the beef sector springs to mind. There is unfair competition across Europe and most European countries are unwilling seriously to reform the CAP. Whenever CAP reform is mentioned, we seem to end up with the lowest common denominator or the option to which people are least hostile, rather than the most favoured or acceptable one.
  There is no better example of that than Agenda 2000, which was heralded as a great change and significant improvement to the CAP structure, but ended as a fudge and muddle in which the Government are complicit. Agenda 2000 was supposed to bring about a shift from production-led subsidies in agriculture to environment-led payments, but did no such thing, so all the good intentions and exaggeration came to nothing. Amazingly, however, the Berlin summit watered down an already diluted package.
  The decision to delay dairy reforms for two years has already been mentioned and was condemned by the Select Committee on Agriculture. Whatever the Minister says, the Select Committee described the decision as disappointing and a bad deal: one does not use such terms except in condemnation. Condemned by the Select Committee, the Berlin summit was an indictment of the Government's ability to argue Britain's case fairly, squarely and successfully in Europe.
  The Minister made great play of the CAP's second pillar of rural development. However, there is no clarity about the shift from production-led subsidies to good environmental schemes and measures. Farmers have not been made aware of any comprehensible and enforceable schemes which they can embrace and which can make a seismic change for them.
  Many Labour Members—not all—do not understand that farming is more than a business. It is a business, of course, subject to all the normal pressures, challenges and constraints on profitability and cost-effectiveness, but it is also something more, comprising the fabric of our nation and our national identity. Farmers have husbanded and conserved our landscape. Their asset or capital resource is our rural idyll. We must face up to and accept that, and all policy must be founded on that acceptance.
  The Government are culpable of certain things, to which they must own up and for which they must take responsibility. One such matter was raised earlier, but I make no apology for amplifying points made about the hyping of aid packages offered to farmers. The first package last September gave nothing to poultry or pig farmers or the arable sector—that is relevant to my constituency, which is principally an arable farming area. The package promised not to impose more charges, but financial aid does not mean saying to someone, "Part of that aid is a charge that I am not going to make, as opposed to what I shall give you." Frankly, presenting an aid package in that way is disingenuous.
  Promises were made and expectations raised. The substance, however, was less impressive than all the usual spin that preceded it. This March's package, once again, contained precious little for arable farmers. I do not begrudge hill farmers the support that they have had, as they deserve it. However, little was offered to the arable sector and nothing to cereal farmers facing cereal prices equivalent to those 25 years ago.
  Imagine the plight of a tenant farmer. "Diversify," is the Prime Minister's response. Does he not understand that diversification is predicated on location—the type of
  1092
  soil or land that one is farming? One cannot grow any crop on any soil. I would have expected the Prime Minister to consider that before speaking in grand terms about diversification, and to ponder the insensitivity of his remark to tenant farmers who have very few options. I accept, however, that that was acknowledged by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) in his most enlightened contribution to our debate.
  The Government can also be indicted for their failure to address the retail problem, by which I mean the supermarkets. Farmers and farmers' leaders cannot say so because the supermarkets are their customers. However, it is an open secret that, time after time, supermarkets are unfair and unreasonable with producers. They frequently cheat consumers as well, and have created undiscerning consumers who—with the greatest apologies to Oscar Wilde do not know the price or value of anything and do not even know where it comes from. I shall give a single example: potatoes. When Cornish potatoes and Lincolnshire new potatoes are available, the supermarket buyer's response is to stay out of the domestic market and buy Majorcan potatoes until such time as the British price falls to the point where it is uneconomic for British farmers to produce and sell their product. I could cite scores of similar cases.
  Ministers have held long discussions with the British Retail Consortium and Lord Sainsbury is a member of the Government, but they have delivered precious little in terms of obliging supermarkets to treat producers fairly. I refer to the Adjournment debate of 11 March last year, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior)—who I know came to the Chamber when he heard that I was speaking. He described how supermarkets frequently broke the links between local producer, local retailer and local consumer. He described the work of Lady Caroline Cranbrook, whose study found that local shops in Suffolk often bought from local producers, but that large supermarkets frequently did not. The Government must address that problem.
  There is no long-term plan for agriculture: we do not know how many producers the Government want there to be in five or 10 years' time; how much production they want; or what relationship they envisage existing between those two elements. The Government have produced no credible business plan for agriculture, and because what plans have been drawn up are not communicated clearly and fairly to farmers, they are left guessing, not knowing what the Government are going to say or do next. The Government give the impression of merely reacting to every new imperative, usually emanating from Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) levelled the next indictment against the Government when he introduced a private Member's Bill that would have enforced proper labelling and obliged retailers to show both country of origin and method of production. It does the Minister of State no credit that she talked out that Bill, which would have provided encouragement to our producers and farmers, clarity to our retailers and satisfaction to our consumers.
  The Government are also guilty of frightening rural Britain. The people of rural Britain perceive in the Government a lack of empathy and sympathy with their needs, their aspirations, their customs and their way of life. That might just be a case of had public relations management—the Government are not particularly good

  1093
  at PR and they have been getting worse lately—but it is what the people of rural Britain believe, what they feel in their heart.
  That brings me naturally to my conclusion. There has always been a romantic thread running through rural life, inspiring a wealth of literature by writers such as Wordsworth, Coleridge, Hardy and Surtees. However, rural life is also hard, and making a living in the British countryside is tough. People in rural Britain, especially farmers, are dependent on variables that are outside their control, especially the weather. They can live with all that chance and all that risk, but they cannot live with an unsympathetic Government and a meddling bureaucracy in Europe.
  The Government's lack of sympathy might result from the fact that their perceptions and character are essentially metropolitan. Perhaps they do not support rural Britain because rural Britain cares about the collective wisdom of ages and about time-honoured habit and custom. However, in the rich earth of my constituency, my fens, my England, there is indeed a richer dust concealed: the dust of generations of farmers, who have built communities, provided gainful employment and, as custodians of our countryside, husbanded our landscape. We owe them a debt, and when that debt is called in, we must not be found wanting.
  6.9 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), even though time does not allow me to respond as fully as I should have liked to some of the points he made, a few of which were over the top. However, I agree with him that farming is more than a business. It is vital to rural communities throughout our country; more than that, it is vital to British society, to the British economy and to the quality of our lives and our countryside. It is no accident that, even before we were in the common agricultural policy—of course, all the major decisions are now made at European level—successive Governments of both parties recognised the need to intervene and support British agriculture.
  To his credit, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acknowledged the depth of the crisis, which is now in its third year. He was right in his analysis of the reasons, as the whole House will acknowledge. First, there is the background of low prices for agricultural commodities worldwide. Secondly, there is the severe disparity between the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro, which is a double whammy for British agriculture. The Prime Minister rightly acknowledged this week that the situation damages manufacturing industry. It damages agriculture, too, because it makes imports cheap and our exports expensive, but there is an additional factor in that it reduces the amount that farmers get in subsidies.
  Thirdly, we have the aftermath of the BSE crisis, which we will be able to discuss when the report comes out. When I had the privilege, as a junior Agriculture Minister, of representing the United Kingdom during the British presidency in the late 1970s, I successfully argued for a derogation on an animal health matter on the grounds that we had higher animal health standards than the rest of the
  1094
  European Union. We were able to exploit the fact that we were separate from the continent and had a reputation for having the best livestock in Europe. I hope that our objective will be to re-establish that. It will take time, as our reputation has been severely damaged by BSE, but we should aim to be able to exploit once again the fact that we are an island people.
  My right hon. Friend rightly emphasised what is called the rural pillar. There is probably consensus across the House on the general shift of money into supporting the development of the rural economy in its broadest sense. One of the key objectives is to have thriving rural communities. We must not lose sight of the crucial importance of agricultural production. The vast bulk of that production is food but, as we all know, the land can also contribute to our energy needs, and that relatively small sector is likely to grow.
  Production is vital. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings can visit a coleslaw manufacturer in his constituency providing 100 or 200 jobs, all of which depend on the raw material that comes from the land in Lincolnshire. Agriculture's importance to the economy, because of the importance of food, should never be undervalued.
  We now include organic farming in the rural pillar budget. I congratulate the Government on the additional support that they have given to organic farming, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome. I address a word of caution to the strong advocates of green policies. Organic farmers have to get the bulk of their income from the market, and the premium that their produce commands over conventionally produced food is vital. It is much more important than the subsidy, which after all is only temporary.
  If organic production is expanded too fast, especially through artificial means, the danger is that the premium will be eroded, leading to a regression in organic production. It is true that we import a lot of organic products at present, so there is scope for increasing UK production, but some of the figures that are bandied about—including in an early-day motion that I saw a few months ago—make me think that those with ecological concerns should bear that danger in mind.
  I want to pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I refer to the word "modulation". I do not know whether we have Mr. Fischler to blame, but it depresses me that the word has been used to apply to the environmental objectives. I support those objectives, but "modulation" is a technical word. In the development of the common agricultural policy, all the arguments—not just during the early years of the present Commissioner, but under previous Commissioners—were about whether we should limit the amount of subsidy going into large agribusinesses—very large farms.
  The proposals for modulation that were put forward in those years were never acceptable to the UK, because a small farm in the UK would be a relatively large farm in some continental countries. However, in my view, that was not an argument for abandoning the policy of modulation. We should consider whether it has a part to play, and recognise that it has been our policy in the

  1095
  Labour party for some years to support as many people on the land as practicable—farmers, tenant farmers, owner-occupier farmers and farm workers.
  We are making a value judgment. We are saying on social grounds that we want to encourage local farming. We prefer the workers and the farmers to live in the local communities, rather than our land to be farmed by some huge landholding company based in London, with the contractors coming in from 50 miles away and disappearing after a couple of days on the land. I hope that we will not lose the argument.
  Large sums of money are going into British agriculture, and there is a case for saying that the issue of modulation, as it was, should not be removed from the agenda. I put it no more strongly than that. A change in the use of the word has no doubt occurred, but the policy and the question whether we should continue to treat large farmers in the same way as small farmers for the purpose of subsidies should be brought back on to the agenda.
  With regard to farm workers, reviews are being carried out by the agricultural wages boards. The review by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Its consultation period has ended before that for England and Wales, but I presume that there is some co-operation, as I understand that both administrations—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Executive—are using sets of consultants to examine the matter further.
  I strongly urge that we should not miss the opportunity provided by the review. We must keep the Agricultural Wages Board. It is vital in terms of skills, and there is no case for arguing that since the introduction of the minimum wage, the board is no longer needed. That was never our policy in opposition. Indeed, I remember campaigning with the Liberal party against a proposal by the Conservative Government to abandon the agricultural wages boards.
  I trust that we will maintain the boards, and give careful consideration to suggestions that will be made by the Transport and General Workers Union on behalf of the agricultural workers about the possible scope for extending the Agricultural Wages Board coverage to other groups of workers in the countryside.
  Finally—I know that several hon. Members still hope to speak in the debate—with regard to the development of the CAP, we must all recognise that although some useful changes have been made, the challenge remains as to how we reform the CAP to accommodate enlargement. I remember the challenge being posed by Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, and it has not yet been met.
  There is one option that we should not pursue, and from which it seems the EU is now moving away. I hope that it is. It had been suggested that producers in the old European Union, in countries such as Britain, France and Germany, should be eligible for subsidies and investments in their enterprise that would not be available to the new entrants. I do not believe that that is sustainable. It should not be possible in the EU for a large farmer in France, for example, to get a grant for investment while a smaller farmer in Poland was denied such a grant. I hope that that will not be part of the package.
  In meeting the challenge, we must recognise the fundamental importance of sustaining our own industry. It is vital to this country. We need a level playing field
  1096
  as regards competition. We know that in some European countries, charges are paid that were paid in the past by producers in this country. The Government have gone some way towards correcting that, against the background of the present crisis.
  In the last century, British agriculture was a huge success story. It is still a huge success story, although it is going through a terrible period of recession, and I am sure no one would underestimate the hardship and suffering experienced by some families. We must maintain our vision: we must continue to see British agriculture as a key industry throughout the century. We, as a Parliament and as a country, must maintain that vision throughout this century.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: The common agricultural policy is an extraordinary invention. It costs European citizens £30 billion a year. The idea was to keep the rural population on the land, but the CAP has failed to do that. It has also failed to deliver cheap food: it costs each family in this country £20 a week, or £1,000 a year. In many ways, it is a parody of central planning in the Soviet Union. It failed there, and it is failing in the European Union today. Its time has passed. Stifling bureaucracies did not work in the Soviet Union, and Britain's farms and food industries must be released from their stranglehold.
  What is bizarre is the fact that there is much common ground. In our European Standing Committee debates, the Government often agree with us. Recently, we had a particularly bizarre debate about flax. The subsidies had rocketed from £45 million to £96 million between 1995 and 1999. It is a huge scandal: 80 per cent. of Spanish flax was burnt in strange barn fires. The Minister agreed, but she could not do anything about it. We are always in the minority in negotiations.
  The feeling in my part of the country is that the CAP is now skewed against Britain's farmers. My milk producers lost out badly in the milk negotiations last year: Ireland was given an extra 150,000 tonnes, although it is more than self-sufficient in milk production. My farmers lost out when the calf scheme ended. Why are they not allowed to export their calves to Europe? Because the Government flunked negotiations on the reopening of beef exports. French farmers get £150 for a good bull calf. Most of the calves in my constituency go to the kennels for nothing; the best go for £10 or £15.
  There is inequity in regulation. The pig industry, for instance, is disappearing from this country. According to a report in the Farmers Guardian last year, 80 per cent. of Dutch pig farmers did not respect Dutch welfare regulations, and 20 per cent. did not know of their existence. That is not being addressed, and we are about to make exactly the same mistake in regard to the eggs directive. This week I spoke to the deputy president of the National Farmers Union, Tim Bennett. He said:
  If we do not get the directive changed, it will be disastrous for the poultry industry.
  In this country, we are establishing standards that are way above those in any neighbouring countries, and way above those of countries outside the European Union or in America. There are farmers in my constituency with a million hens, and possibly 120 employees, trying to compete with plants in the United States that have 13 million hens and nine employees.

  1097
  Let me say something about enlargement. I feel that we have a moral obligation to bring the eastern countries fully into the western trading system, but it is unthinkable that they should be brought into the CAP. I should be interested if the Minister could give us a clue about what is going on in the negotiations. I recently talked to ambassadors from some of those countries, who said that they were looking for derogations banning non-citizens from buying agricultural land for 20 years. That is a non-starter. We need to get rid of the CAP: those countries do not want it, because export-subsidised agricultural products are destroying their rural industries.
  Not long ago, the Select Committee on Agriculture went to Washington. The line in America was "If you export-subsidise your products, you create a problem in a third market, and that gives us a big problem in America. If you want to protect your small family farms, we respect the environmental output of agriculture in Europe, and we realise that tourism represents a major output." I understood that payments for that purpose would be acceptable, and I found that very encouraging; but we must eradicate the CAP to get there. We must look to the green box, as it is called, and consider payments for the environment and tourism.
  If we had been more radical, we could have included animal welfare in the negotiations. Animal welfare features prominently in public opinion, especially in this country and increasingly in Europe. We have to respect that. However, it is a non-starter in the United States. To use a popular expression, it is not on the screen. The Government must acknowledge that by unilaterally pushing up animal welfare standards—I have already cited the examples of pigs and poultry—we massively reduce the competitiveness of United Kingdom producers. If we do that, we must unilaterally take measures to counter the lack of competitiveness.
  Why did the Minister of State talk out the labelling measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) promoted? It was a sensible measure, which provided for unilateral action in this country to counter the unilateral action that put our producers in an uncompetitive position.
  I am seriously worried that the Government have not taken into account the impact of proposals to establish a European food authority, which was debated in European Standing Committee C. Document No. (1999 719 final) proposes setting up a new food authority. The 84 action points would overrule much current UK legislation on agriculture, food production and local government. Yet when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health about the treaty basis for the proposals and when I asked her some basic questions, she could not answer.
  It is clear that health is of greater public concern in Europe. The Food and Drug Administration in America is respected, partly because it is so transparent. Any incident in the United States is on the internet. In this country, there was BSE; in France, there was the blood scandal, and its Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, nearly went to jail; in Belgium, there was dioxin. Clearly, there is public anxiety about food safety. However, the answer is not to set up huge new quangos.
  1098
  The Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin has increased its numbers from 150 to 600. It can use the new fast-track method, by which the UK was fined £200 million for breaching the fine habitats directive. Direction, interference and regulation of the food industry will not be run from here by the new Food Standards Agency, but by DGXXIV in Brussels.
  I wish to consider the problem of unregulated, unaccountable quangos. I am especially worried that, within a month of the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, when all-party colleagues on the Select Committee and I proposed that it should not be the executive agency running the Meat Hygiene Service and the policing agency, a scandal has occurred in Eardisley in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). I have given him notice of the problem.
  It is inconceivable that one of our few profitable abattoirs, which produced premium products, has been shut down. It took 350,000 lambs a year from all around the Welsh borders and received high health and safety scores for the past five years. Sixteen different vets inspected it. One new vet joined the Meat Hygiene Service and it closed down. That is a major public scandal. I have written to the Minister, his colleague the Secretary of State for Health and Professor Sir John Krebs, who is head of the Food Standards Agency. I should like an assurance that there will be a full, independent, public tribunal and that all evidence and conclusions will be published on the internet.
  Mr. Livsey: I fully support the hon. Gentleman's comments. The abattoir is on the boundary of my constituency. Its closure has hit my livestock farmers badly. An investigation must take place, and its findings must be published soon.
  Mr. Paterson: I endorse those comments and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
  Central planning for food production has failed. We must not allow further regulation from distant quangos in Brussels to interfere and overregulate our food processing industries. The food processors must set their quality standards. They should be judged on their results. There should not be dirigiste interference by officials to impose new levels of European regulation.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. James Paice: As is usual in such debates, I must remind the House of my interest, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who is not present, was sad that few Members have attended the debate, and I share that view. I am especially concerned that the Labour party, which claims to represent rural areas and has two and a half times as many Members as my party, managed to find only five speakers.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Paice: No, but I may do so in a moment.
  Nevertheless, those who spoke made good points; we were not saddled with time-filling speeches made by Members brought to the Chamber by Government Whips.

  1099
  I make it absolutely clear that we welcome the action plan that was produced at the summit and the principle of the rural development initiative. The Government have done much to help the industry, and we support that, but we are concerned that they have added more problems to those that are not their responsibility, and introduced delays. When the Minister came to office almost two years ago, he set out to endear himself to farmers. He put a metaphorical arm round their shoulders and expressed his sympathy. He has done that well, but his tenure has been marked by dither and delay: the four-month delay in writing to public purchasers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred, and the several weeks' delay in banning the import of Belgian products during the dioxin scare—long after other countries had banned it—with the result that the United Kingdom market was flooded with Belgian chicken meat and the price collapsed.
  The action plan for farming contains many sensible measures, but they are all long overdue, despite having been demanded by the industry for some time. However, the Minister had the gall to accuse us of not making proposals. We and many others had been calling for the pig industry restructuring proposals for months. After two years of loss making, the Minister waited until the market improved before taking action. He will remove the over-30-months limit; we called for that a year ago. He will change groundwater charges and the charges imposed under the integrated pollution prevention and control directive; we called for that a year ago. The BSE measures are to be reviewed, but everyone called for the review of meat inspection charges. Even the Minister said:
  In dealing with those charges, we do not intend to put smaller operations—particularly those that specialise in high-quality product—out of business. My aim is that the study should be completed quickly, and I intend to take a close interest in its conclusions.—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 993.]
  Nothing happened until 30 March 2000.
  We called for rate relief on horse establishments two years ago, and we also called for a risk-based approach to meat hygiene. We have been calling for many other changes for some time.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: Not for a moment.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: I have just said that I will not.
  We welcome what has been done, but regret that it has taken so long for the Minister to act. We also welcome the comments on deregulation that he made in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), but they do not sit well with what has been taking place. On deregulation, the Minister once said:
  I intend to have the whole issue re-examined by specialist advisers.—[Official Report, 4 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 952.]
  However, he did not even announce the membership of the working groups until 11 October 1999–11 months later. That is a catalogue of complacency. Out there in the real world, farmers are losing money and going out of business. Farm workers are losing their jobs, many of which might have been saved if the right hon. Gentleman had acted more quickly.
  1100
  Every time the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) speaks, I become even more concerned that he thinks of himself as a Labour Member. He always speaks on such matters with common sense and made several sensible points. [Interruption.] I do not want to destroy his career, but I think that he is doing it himself anyway.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the importance of ensuring that our regulations, our charging systems and all the burdens that we put on our farmers are no greater than those for the farmers with whom they must compete. That is critical.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), in what I suppose I could call a robust oration, referred to two things. I shall respond briefly to the question that he asked. I am sure that my answer will not satisfy him, but I shall try. First, he raised the issue of beef labelling. I agree with him. I hope that the Minister will comment on the business of having to state on the label whether the beef has come from a steer, a bull or a heifer. That is irrelevant.
  As for whether the Conservative Front-Bench team supports collectivism—as my hon. Friend, I think, knows, we do not. The CAP has many faults, but to describe it as collectivism is an exaggeration. It has provided opportunity for entrepreneurship and innovation. Many farms are a testament to that. I do not think that either of those are features of collectivism.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) wanted a longer-term strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) highlighted the fact that the CAP is increasing in cost to the taxpayer and to the consumer, with a decrease in income to the farmer.
  Many Members have commented, properly, that unarguably the biggest problem is the strength of sterling versus the euro. The Government cannot wring their hands and pass the buck. The scale of the gap between the pound and the euro is a feature not only of the problems of the euro—although I readily accept that that is a significant factor—but of Government economic policy.
  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Monetary Policy Committee control over interest rates to control inflation, he thought that he had shuffled off responsibility for inflation, but he had not, because increasing public expenditure, increasing fuel taxes and halving the savings ratio are all inflationary. The committee has had to counter that with higher interest rates than would otherwise be necessary.
  As for the MAFF regional centres, I welcome again the Minister's recognition of the need for an interface with farmers, but the PricewaterhouseCoopers report is causing widespread concern not only among his own employees in those centres, but among farmers. Last week, I sat in the Cambridge waiting room for an hour or so and spoke to many farmers. Even I was surprised how far some of them had come for advice and help and to have their forms checked. Some had driven for more than two hours to get there. That interface is critical.
  The Minister will say, no doubt, that in time it can all be done through electronic communication. No doubt it will be, but the pilot schemes so far have not exactly been a raging success. I understand that although farmers send the forms in by e-mail, they have to follow them on foot or in a car to sign them.

  1101
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred to arable farming. The arable sector is disappointed that there is nothing for arable farmers in the latest package. Wheat and barley prices for the coming harvest are likely to be of the order of £60 a tonne—close to half the price only seven or eight years ago. On top of that, English arable farmers face a reduction in their payments.
  Whereas the Agenda 2000 reform, about which we have heard so much, increased the payment per hectare by 25 euros for the coming year, our farmers will see a reduction of some £8 per hectare at today's exchange rates. That is without taking into account the 2.5 per cent. cut to fund the rural development programme.
  Will the Minister confirm that there will be a further payment of £11.12 per hectare of cereals this autumn on the back of the 1999 claim? Will she confirm whether there will be any compensation for the reduction in this year's payments? Will she respond to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about cash flow?
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to sugar. I was going to quote something that he has said on previous occasions, but I need not bother because he reiterated his policy today, which is that he thinks that the sugar price should be cut. I am glad that he has acknowledged that, and that I got his words right. However, I do not see his logic, which seemed to be that because all other arable prices have fallen, so should that of sugar. It seems odd that the one lifeline that exists for countless arable farmers should be taken from them.
  Reference was made to the pesticide tax. I am glad that the Prime Minister made his statement at the annual general meeting of the NFU, but we wait to see whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will accept the voluntary scheme put forward by the industry. I hope and trust—given his previous pronouncements—that the Minister is supporting the industry.
  Mr. Nick Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Paice: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.
  Mention has been made of an early retirement scheme. The Government said no to that because of the "dead weight" issue. However, I believe—as do others on both sides of the House—that there is a case for such a scheme. The past two or three years have deprived farmers, particularly tenant farmers, of their capital. Milk quota is now 17p to 19p a litre to buy or sell. It was almost double that a year ago. The capital value of their stock has gone, so many small tenant dairy farmers have had their pension fund halved. Ireland has developed an innovative scheme, and I commend it—or something similar—to the Minister.
  Long-term reform of the CAP is critical. There is no doubt about that, and there is not a great deal of difference across the House on the need for it. Last year's reform was weak. I believe that the biggest and most significant reform was the 1992 MacSharry reform, which shifted the concept from market support to direct aid. More reform is essential for enlargement, and I am concerned by stories that the enlargement talks are beginning to founder on that point.
  1102
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, even the United States—which presents itself as a Messiah of the free market—has had to put billions of dollars into agriculture. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has figures on the producer support estimate—the means of measuring public support. In Europe, it is considered to be about £18 a week for a family of four. In the United States, it is considered to be £16 or £17. That must be borne in mind in negotiations, and it does not even take into account the burden of the environmental and welfare controls that we place on our farms.
  Without support for farming in the UK, there would still be farming; land would be farmed, but not in a way that the public would support. Good land would be farmed even more intensively, and poorer land would be farmed so extensively—the word "ranching" was used in the debate—that dereliction would develop, and the public would be very upset.
  What matters is the form of support. We need to move from market support and abandon production controls that prevent farmers from expanding to compensate for falling prices. We need to make support transparent—not just the sums, but their purpose.
  The previous Government developed the concept of environmentally sensitive areas—the first, and, I believe, still the largest step towards payment for environmental measures. We introduced the countryside stewardship scheme, and this Government implemented our arable stewardship scheme. There is no single form of support that is right for everyone. There must be a range of options, and the only common factor must be that they are clear in their intention, and designed for a purpose that the public will support.
  Farmers do not want more subsidy. They do not like being dependent on the taxpayer, and they like being dependent on politicians even less. However, they expect a fair deal and an opportunity to compete on a level playing field, with the same regulations and obligations as others. If we in this House—for very good reasons, sometimes—place upon them regulations which are not being placed on their competitors, we have a moral duty to help to compensate for those extra costs.
  This debate is about the future of British agriculture, as well as the future of the British landscape and countryside. We expect ever more environmental care from our farmers, and we impose more and more regulation on them.
  In my travels, farmers across the country have asked me, "Do the Government really want us any more?" I do not try to answer that question, but say, "I don't know whether they do—you'll have to ask the Minister." Farmers believe that under this Government, they are dispensable. Despite the Minister's warm words, his actions have so far proved insufficient to provide real help. It is a matter not of applying a few sticking plasters, but of addressing long-term issues.
  Three years ago, Labour told the electorate that things could only get better. Since then, as European Union figures show, farm incomes in the rest of Europe have decreased by less than 10 per cent., whereas in the United Kingdom they have decreased by 37 per cent. If that is what happens when things get better, goodness knows what would happen if Labour were trying to make them worse.

  1103
  I do not pretend that any Government have a magic wand, and I realise that many of the issues facing agriculture are outside the Government's control, but many more issues than the Minister seems willing to admit are within the Government's control.
  Farming is a part of the rural community—a critical part, not just an add-on. The places where people live and work are there because farmers created them and maintain them. They cannot be immune to changing markets or to moves to freer trade, but they can be helped in that change. That is a challenge that we believe we are best placed to meet. This debate has shown that the Government's response is entirely inadequate.
  6.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): This has been a very worthwhile debate. It has certainly confirmed the opinion and recommendation of the European Scrutiny Committee that we should have a full-scale debate on the issue, despite the fact that, given the agreements that were made under Agenda 2000, European Union annual price-fixing no longer has the same impact. The Committee quite rightly pointed out that this debate would give us a chance to review changes in the common agricultural policy as a whole, and to review events and developments in our own farming industry and the follow-up to the Prime Minister's summit on 30 March, to which various hon. Members have referred.
  The debate has been very thoughtful and has shown a depth of knowledge of agriculture and agriculture-related issues. It has also demonstrated considerable concern for the difficulties of constituents across the country.
  For a while, I even thought that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was going to give us a calm, reasoned speech. Eventually, however, his over-the-top instincts overwhelmed him and proved impossible for him to resist. I should like to correct him on two of his comments. First, he certainly seemed to have forgotten that the previous agriculture debate—an all-day debate—was in Government time, and that, in the previous week, an agriculture debate was introduced by the Liberal Democrats. I remember that debate vividly, as it was my first outing at the Dispatch Box as an Agriculture Minister.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for South Suffolk gave the impression that, at the National Farmers Union conference, the Leader of the Opposition was giving a more generous commitment on agri-monetary commitment than we were. However, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about using the savings from the sheep annual premium scheme resulting from currency changes, which amounted to £30 million. The agri-monetary payments that we announced at the summit amounted to £66 million.
  Additionally, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food properly pointed out, since coming to office, we have paid about half a billion pounds in agri-monetary payments, despite the constraints to which hon. Members have referred arising from the priorities of public expenditure and the difficulties resulting from the Fontainebleau abatement mechanism.
  At one point, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) seemed to suggest that we have not supported arable farmers. I should point out to him that arable farmers receive £1 billion annually in
  1104
  direct area aid payments. They have had agri-monetary compensation of £170 million, and another £57 million is due this autumn. That amounts to very substantial support. We are aware of the difficulties that arable farmers are facing, and I am not trying to disguise them. None the less, we need to correct any misapprehension that that particular sector has not received support, because it certainly has done.
  A number of hon. Members referred to devolution. One Conservative Member seemed to suggest that the existence of devolved responsibilities made it pointless for my hon. Friends from Scotland and Wales to participate in the debate. I was glad that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) contradicted that by pointing out that because we are part of a common agricultural policy—that is largely the subject of this debate—the United Kingdom member state has to negotiate. My right hon. Friend the Minister does that in close co-operation with the Ministers in the devolved administrations. It is important to highlight that success story for the Government. The debate has been equally valid for all Members of Parliament.
  It is impossible to address all the issues that have been raised in the time available. On a rough calculation, there are three times as many questions and issues as I have minutes available, never mind the points that I wish to make myself. I am glad that there was a general welcome for the package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 March. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the 62 points of the action plan and set out how we propose to take forward many of them.
  However, I should pick up on some of the points made about the action plan, particularly those that were most frequently the subject of Members' concerns. I fully understand the continuing difficulties in the dairy sector. I am glad that the package included not only devising a programme for agri-monetary payments—the first such payments to the dairy sector—but the removal of hygiene charges, moves to scrap the limits on the over-30-months scheme and important moves on the code of practice, which we hope will help the dairy industry and others. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), referred to relationships in the food industry.
  It has not been pointed out during the debate that we are committed to a campaign for the generic promotion of milk and have passed an order through the House to facilitate that. I hope that the campaign will appear shortly and will be as effective as many well known milk-drinking campaigns of the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West mentioned school milk schemes. We have been active in support of the European Union school milk scheme and have attracted a lot of support from other member states.
  Mr. Paterson: If the Minister was in Shropshire tonight and saw a male black-and-white calf born, what would she advise the farmer to do with it?
  Ms Quin: The market for calves is strengthening. There are also initiatives on finding future opportunities for the calf market. The Ministry and the National Farmers Union have taken forward some interesting and

  1105
  worthwhile initiatives on issues such as ethical veal. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman looks at some of them. We cannot answer all the problems of finding markets in the industry, but we are actively seeking to do what we can.
  I very much welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the successors to Milk Marque can get involved in processing. That important point has not been mentioned in the debate.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members were concerned about the pig industry. I am glad that some, including the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), welcomed what we had done at the summit and the scheme that we devised to avoid falling foul of European Union state aid rules. Again, that is not all that we have done for the pig sector. As well as the appointment of the verification officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has already had some success in curbing misleading labelling and has persuaded certain supermarkets to change their labelling as a result—
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Quin: I have only five minutes left to deal with some of the points that have been raised, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.
  We have given guidance to trading standards officers and offered support for the promotion campaign on animal welfare standards. Yesterday I was at the National Agricultural Centre in Stoneleigh, launching the promotion campaign to highlight the animal welfare standards that we have met in the pig industry. The campaign message is simple—to support farmers who look after their animals properly. Right hon. and hon. Members may have already seen advertisements in today's national press. We believe that that will be important in drawing our consumers' attention to the high standards in our industry, and the importance of helping our producers at a difficult time.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who chairs the Select Committee on Agriculture, made a number of interesting points about the importance of tackling red tape. I believe that he has welcomed some of the initiatives that we have taken, particularly in the review of red tape and the fact that MAFF has been so willing to accept the conclusions of the three working groups. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the concept of not gold-plating, and of having a commitment to look at the competitiveness of our industry in relation to other European countries, is at the heart of our approach. He called it a change of policy, but I believe that it is a policy that we have always had. However, I assure him that ours is a deep-seated, determined and purposeful approach.
  The hon. Member for West Tyrone welcomed the progress that we have made in Northern Ireland by being granted low BSE incidence status. He is right that there are a number of complexities in that situation. None the less, we believe that Commissioner Byrne, along with Ministers here and in Northern Ireland, are working hard for a successful outcome that gives Northern Ireland that status but does not provoke some of the problems about which certain producers have worried.
  1106
  The Government have a long-term, as well as a short-term, approach to agriculture. That was evident in the farming summit, but it has also been evident in earlier pronouncements by MAFF, particularly when my right hon. Friend launched the new direction for agriculture last December.
  We are in the vanguard of change in Europe. Many right hon. and hon. Members referred to common agricultural policy reform. The way in which we have chosen to implement the possibilities under the second pillar of the CAP has shown how we can move away from the traditional CAP production support towards a policy of rural development, which helps diversification in agriculture. Indeed, we have been far more active than the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) seemed to give us credit for. The money that has been allocated for marketing under the rural development regulation is dramatically more than that under the agricultural development scheme, which was a beginning.
  In terms of reforming the common agricultural policy and moving forward to a new long-term sustainable direction for agriculture, the Government have done more in three years than the previous Government did in 18. We have a long-term strategy, and I believe that the British people will prefer Labour achievement to Tory opportunism on agriculture and the countryside. Therefore, I invite the House to support our motion.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 257.

  Division No. 194]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gibb, Nick

  Amess, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baldry, Tony

  Green, Damian

  Bercow, John

  Greenway, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Boswell, Tim

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hammond, Philip

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith,

  Collins, Tim

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Day, Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Letwin, Oliver

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  1107

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, William

  Paice, James

  Townend, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Prior, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wells, Bowen

  Ruffley, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilkinson, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. John Randall

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Connarty, Michael

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cox, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Austin, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barnes, Harry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beard, Nigel

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

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

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caplin, Ivor

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clelland, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Goggins, Paul

  Coleman, Iain

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Colman, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  1108

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morley, Elliot

  Healey, John

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

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hesford, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hill, Keith

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Pendry, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Illsley, Eric

  Plaskitt, James

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rapson, Syd

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roy, Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Laxton, Bob

  Sawford, Phil

  Lepper, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Levitt, Tom

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Linton, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCabe, Steve

  Spellar, John

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Macdonald, Calum

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McDonnell, John

  Stevenson, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  MacShane, Denis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stringer, Graham

  McWalter, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Timms, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Todd, Mark

  1109

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Woolas, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Worthington, Tony

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wyatt, Derek

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6629/00, a Commission proposal on the prices for agricultural products (2000–01); supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interest of UK producers, consumers and tax-payers alike; and also takes note and approves of the action which the Government has taken in partnership with the industry to launch the new Action Plan for Farming to ensure that British agriculture is more sustainable, dynamic and diverse, and more consumer and market-orientated.

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of its approval under section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the draft Code of Practice on Access to Workers during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots shall be treated as if it was an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

PETITION

  National Service Men
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the National Service Veterans Alliance in relation to the 2.2 million of our fellow citizens—all men—conscripted for national service between 1945 and 1963—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) says that he was among them—so were my two older brothers.
  Like many colleagues, I support the objective of the petitioners. The petition states:
  The Petition of We the Citizens of the United Kingdom who support the reasons set out in the declaration below.
  Declare that We support the tangible recognition of National Servicemen conscripted between the end of World War Two and the cessation of National Service 1963.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support the following two remedies:

  1. The award of a National Service Medal to every man conscripted for National Service irrespective of where he served.

  2. The erection of a National Monument to Peace recognising the contribution played by the two million two hundred thousand of the Nation's young Men conscripted to guard that Peace.

  And We the Petitioners respectfully trust this Petition worthy of consideration by the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  There are 10,000 petitioners and it is with great pleasure that I present their petition to Parliament.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I have wanted to highlight the problem of cleanliness in national health service hospitals for some time and, because of what I shall say, it is fortunate that tomorrow is the anniversary of Florence Nightingale's birthday and also international nurses day, as I am sure the Minister is aware.
  By tackling dirt and disorder in the hospitals in the Crimea, Florence Nightingale became, and still is, a national heroine; she is a personal heroine of mine, and always has been. It is worth remembering that, in the first winter of the Crimean war, 40 per cent. of wounded men who were brought to the barrack hospital at Scutari died; it was a no-hope place. The death rate among the general population in Great Britain at that time was 35 per 1,000 people—only 3.5 per cent. After six months' work by Florence Nightingale, the death rate among the wounded in the barrack hospital was 3 per cent. That was an astonishing achievement in a short space of time.
  If one wants to learn quickly how Florence Nightingale achieved that, I recommend a trip to the Florence Nightingale museum, which is just across the river in the entrance to St. Thomas's hospital. It is a delightful gem of a place that celebrates the life and work of Florence Nightingale, a formidable lady who, without modern medicines—and despite the often fatal interventions of members of my profession—saved thousands of lives.
  Florence Nightingale was in the Crimea for only two years, but she returned to England and for nearly 60 years did the same work in hospitals here. She completely transformed nursing and medical care. She introduced simple hygiene measures, scrupulous cleanliness in her hospitals and efficient nurse training. That is all described in her book, "Notes on Nursing", which is still available, and in many other writings; she was a prolific author and always published her findings. Ministers in the Department of Health should read her book if they have not done so already—I hope that they have.
  Florence Nightingale's most quoted remark is quite beautiful. She said:
  It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital that it should do the sick no harm.
  That was a revolutionary remark in her time. Some 140 years after the founding of the school of nursing at St. Thomas's hospital by Florence Nightingale, we can no longer say that hospitals do no harm. In hospital, 9 per cent. of patients acquire infections—that is nearly one in 10. Unfortunately, no data are collected centrally on the number of deaths that result from hospital-acquired infections, but probably about 1 per cent. of all deaths are from that cause.
  The incidence of resistant bacteria has increased. Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—MRSA—is now a huge problem and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has raised that issue on several occasions and asked many questions about it. It is resistant to most antibiotics and can kill debilitated patients very quickly. Incidents of MRSA infection—which are defined as three or more patients affected at one time—rose from 342 in 1992 to a peak of
  1112
  2,364 in 1997. I am glad to say that the number of those incidents is beginning to fall, but we must watch it carefully. The National Audit Office estimates that hospital-acquired infections cost the health service £1 billion a year, which is an awful lot of funding. Only today, I heard that two London teaching hospitals have recently had to close wards because of MRSA infections.
  We may not be able to see the bacteria, but spending time in a health service hospital—as I still do—soon reveals why there are so many incidents of infection. I sometimes feel that I am walking into a third-world hospital because the standards of cleanliness are so bad. There are dirty corridors and filthy wards. Swabs and tissues are left lying around patients and uneaten food is left about. One of my constituents complained that the drip stand holding the drip bottle going into her arm was caked in blood all the time that it was in use. Toilets and bathrooms are dirty.
  My constituents and others have also seen those things. Indeed, many hon. Members approached me when they found out that this Adjournment debate was to take place to say that their constituents had given them similar examples. An elderly friend of mine who was recently admitted to a well-known hospital for major surgery acquired bedsores and an MRSA infection within a week of her admission.
  Florence Nightingale must be turning in her grave. After all that progress, we are slipping back to the dirt and carelessness of previous centuries. Antibiotics and disinfectants are no longer our saviours. What a nonsense it all is. I have worked as a doctor in the health service for many years, and the reasons for the dirtiness are staring me in the face. First, and importantly, cleaners are no longer employed directly by the trusts and are not under the supervision of ward sisters—I am sorry, that is not politically correct, I mean the senior ward nurses—where we are lucky enough to have them.
  There is another arrangement instead, of which I have hands-on experience and which used to drive me mad. The trust contracts out the cleaning to the best tenderer, standards slip after the first few weeks as the company cannot live up to expectations, and the ward's senior nurse has to contact the cleaning manager, who contacts the contractor, to renegotiate stiffer terms. There is then a six-month trial period, standards begin to slip again and the whole process starts once more. That is a scandal, as are the wages paid to some of those cleaners.
  It does not help that the cleaners are no longer part of the ward team. They are no longer appreciated or properly supervised. We must bring back directly employed cleaning staff under the supervision of ward sisters and senior nurses. The Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association are calling for that, and I hope that the Government are listening.
  Medical and nursing staff themselves are not all blameless. I hate to criticise the angels of the NHS—not just nurses, but junior hospital doctors as well—but I must do so. One of the recommendations in the NAO report is that staff should wash their hands, which, apparently, they do not do very often. Eight per cent. of trusts in the NHS do not even have a policy on hand washing. Why one should need such a policy escapes me. Just before I came into the Chamber, I had a phone call from a nurse saying that what I had been saying earlier was absolutely right.

  1113
  She told me that, again and again, she sees nurses failing to wash their hands before going on to the next patient. That is not a very nice fact.
  The NAO's wonderful report recommends hand washing in recommendation 25, but, in case anyone cannot read, it also has a comic strip that shows in pictures how to wash one's hands—quite extraordinary. The report's next recommendation states that routine procedures such as ward cleaning are also important—surprise, surprise; it has taken a long time to come up with those remarkable observations. I find it unbelievable that, in 2000, 150 years after Florence Nightingale, the NAO has to tell people working in the NHS to wash their hands and keep the wards clean.
  Nurses and doctors must have more practical training. Theory is all very well, but we appear to have lost touch with practical procedures. We cannot have staff flitting around hospital wards like little mosquitoes, spreading disease between patients. Discipline, hygiene and proper practice must be insisted on. Again, the senior nurse on a ward, who once ruled supreme in such matters, must supervise the nurses on the ward and ensure that those things are done. I have to say that the good old hospital matron used to carry out spot checks relentlessly to ensure that proper practice was observed.
  We must do something about the problem. I know that the Government are extremely concerned about the issue, and I have no doubt that the Minister will mention the NAO report and others—but the evidence makes depressing reading. I have been through the whole report: it speaks of infection control teams, infection control nurses and infection control doctors and how many beds they should supervise; it speaks of clerical support to collect statistics and managers to write reports about the teams and the statistics; it speaks of computer hardware and software, and electronic patient record systems; but the only real sense it contains is in the recommendations that should not have had to be there—those on hand washing and cleaning.
  Clinical staff would say that more doctors and nurses are needed. It is all very well criticising doctors and nurses for not clearing up after they have carried out a clinical procedure, or for not washing their hands before going on to the next patient, but if their pager is going off and they are rushing off to a patient who will die if they do not get there immediately and there are not enough doctors and nurses to go around, corners sometimes get cut or they forget to do those things. We need better pathology departments, and—hint, hint—better-paid technicians to perform screening tests on patients, and staff to enable infections to be isolated before they spread. I have to pay another tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, who introduced a debate in the House on pay and attracting more technicians and scientists into hospital laboratories.
  In a fax sent to me today, the BMA neatly summed up the case, saying
  the measures most likely to have an immediate effect in the protection of patients from hospital acquired infections are the hygiene disciplines—practices and procedures commonplace in the food industry—
  which include—
  Adequate washing and changing facilities, the provision and laundering of protective clothing, the maintenance and cleaning of premises and the imposition of handwashing disciplines.
  1114
  Florence Nightingale said it all 150 years ago, and we should have been doing all those things ever since.
  Medicine has progressed in an amazing way in the past 100 years: we do things in health service hospitals now that were undreamt of 30 years ago, when I was a student; I cannot believe the progress that has been made. However, with all the advances, we appear to have thrown out common sense and good clinical practice. Please, let us bring Florence Nightingale back before it is too late.
  7.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing a debate on this important issue. It provides me with an opportunity to demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving the cleanliness of hospitals.
  Hospital cleanliness matters to patients, to visitors and to staff. It is as important today as it was in the time of Florence Nightingale, the 180th anniversary of whose birth falls tomorrow, as the hon. Lady said. I cannot promise that we will resurrect Florence Nightingale, but we can do a lot to re-establish some of the principles that she espoused. We will be celebrating the anniversary as part of international nurses day tomorrow, so this is an opportune moment for me to pay tribute to the contribution that nurses have made throughout the years to the comfort and care of patients.
  Cleanliness matters for patient comfort and service quality. When we are ill, we have a right to expect high-quality medical care. It is vital that that care is provided in the best possible surroundings. No one should receive treatment or have to recuperate in a dirty or uncared-for environment. Our hospital staff, too, want and deserve an efficient, well-run, clean working environment, because without it they cannot deliver proper care, and in most cases that need for cleanliness is met.
  We need to put the matter in perspective. Last year, the second national survey of national health service patients in England asked 112,000 patients suffering from coronary heart disease about their experiences in hospital. We specifically asked about cleanliness in toilets and bathrooms, and 93 per cent. rated them as fairly clean or very clean. We know that we must raise the standards of those few that do not match the majority.
  Only this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health stated his commitment not only to consult but to listen and act on the public's views. Through the national plan, patients and the public will be able to have their say on creating a 21st-century NHS. We would be pleased to hear people's views on this important issue.
  There are three strands to making our hospitals cleaner. First, people must know what standards they are expected to achieve; secondly, they must have the tools to achieve them; and thirdly, there must be evaluation and monitoring of whether they are being achieved. When this Government came to power, there was a notable absence of all three strands. However, we saw the importance of the issue and we are taking action.
  We have made it absolutely clear that clinical governance is as important as corporate governance, and I can demonstrate that we mean business. The Commission for Health Improvement will provide robust, independent scrutiny of NHS arrangements, through a rolling programme of clinical governance reviews.

  1115
  The commission's expertise and focus will be clinical but its remit will also include important non-clinical, organisational factors. It will work closely with other external review and inspection bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Audit Commission to ensure the comprehensive clinical and non-clinical monitoring of NHS hospitals. Additionally, NHS Estates can offer expert guidance and advice to the commission where the quality of facilities management is in question. Its regional office teams will review performance of non-clinical support.
  A vital component of our commitment is our initiative on controls assurance, which will set the framework for standards. The programme sets out national standards in key quality areas. It is part of our overall aim of reducing unacceptable variations across the country and driving up standards. One standard covers infection control and is directly relevant to this debate. Furthermore, we are already developing explicit standards on hospital cleanliness.
  The existing controls assurance standards already require a whole hospital approach to infection control. They clearly state that infection control committees should have facilities managers as full members. One specific criterion requires prevention and control of infection to be considered as part of all service development. Trusts are further directed to have robust agreements for service provision, whether in-house or through contract, with regular monitoring of standards. The standards and guidance were issued last year and are expected to deliver improvements in performance.
  We have made it absolutely clear what we expect, but we have also taken steps to provide the tools for the job. We have done that with money, with standard setting and by working with the service.
  Improving the environment is not just about cleanliness. In his speech to the Royal College of Nursing, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that ward sisters will control a budget of at least £5,000 to improve their ward environments. That will give them direct power to make the changes necessary to modernise hospital wards, which could include painting walls or replacing worn carpets. Responsibility will hence move away from managers to those who work on the wards.
  Better-maintained and better-cleaned wards will ensure that patients feel better, and research shows that where patients rate their environment more highly, they get better more quickly; staff morale also benefits.
  We have also helped staff to improve their own services. We have endorsed the excellent work carried out by the Infection Control Nurses Association and the Association of Domestic Managers in producing "Standards for Environmental Cleanliness in Hospitals". The hon. Lady's debate is timely. I have a copy of those standards, hot off the press, which will be distributed by NHS Estates and posted tomorrow to every chief executive in the NHS. After the debate, I shall be happy to give the hon. Lady the first copy to go into public circulation.
  The standards are explicit statements of best practice. They have been produced by people working in the NHS. As the hon. Lady commented, people who work in the system know best where it is going wrong and how we can improve it. They understand the problems and know the realities involved in keeping hospitals clean. From tomorrow, all NHS hospitals will be able to use the standards.
  1116
  Some people argue, and the hon. Lady suggested, that one of the reasons for poor standards of hospital cleanliness is the system of compulsory market testing. In some cases it may be true that standards have fallen because of that, but NHS trusts are required to achieve a high-quality service for their patients. When market-testing a service, the trust should award the contract to the bidder who best meets the quality standards required and offers value for money. On-going evaluation of cleaning standards will be set against the national standards.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for giving way. May I press her a little further on that point? She must realise that with the tightness of their budgets, trusts invariably go for the cheapest tender, rather than the one that offers the best-quality service.
  Ms Stuart: I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured that the NHS Executive is currently reviewing the policy on market testing. Also, we have put more money into the NHS trusts. We must be clear that we expect value for money, which entails meeting the cleaning standards.
  We want to encourage the domestic staff. The hon. Lady mentioned that for some time, cleaning staff have not felt that they were part of the team. They must be seen as part of the ward team delivering services to the patient, and must not feel that their contribution is not appreciated. They should realise that it is an extremely important contribution. It is easy to forget that domestic services staff are the second largest staff group in the NHS, and their contribution is invaluable.
  The proposed guidelines will highlight the importance of securing best value for patients. They will stress how important it is to decide what is required in terms of quality and patient satisfaction, as well as cost. In a sense, who provides the service matters less than the quality standards being delivered. If the required quality standards are not reached, the work should be given to someone who can deliver it effectively. Chief executives and trust boards are held accountable for the performance of their support services.
  NHS Estates has endorsed a series of good practice guides designed by the Health Facilities Consortium. The guide on cleaning and domestic services has a scoring system for quality, and clear performance measures. It allows trusts to compare performances and to evaluate their own performance.
  I share the hon. Lady's incredulity at the National Audit Office report and the comic-strip guidelines about how to wash one's hands, but they are clearly needed if there is a failing. However basic it may seem and however much we may lay ourselves open to ridicule, if that is the way forward, we will take it. Hospital-acquired infection is an important topic, and the report is much appreciated. It is clear that we now treat patients who probably would not have been treated only a decade ago. They are often very sick and vulnerable to infection, and the medical procedures that they undergo may be invasive. The nature of the care they receive may present a greater opportunity than in the past for infections to gain a foothold.
  We are taking infection control seriously. Within the controls assurance programme, we have developed 15 infection control criteria. They include the requirement to ensure that infection control teams are in place. The teams are usually led by a medical microbiologist,

  1117
  and include nurses with specialist training. They are an important part of the chain of influence involved in keeping hospitals clean. The controls assurance standards require infection control teams to be involved at all stages of the contracting process for hotel services. That includes laundry and clinical waste management, as well as cleaning. It means that clinical and quality concerns are kept at the heart of the management process.
  Along with those clear guidelines for what trusts should do and how they can achieve it, we have promoted training opportunities for those who make it happen. We know that people who are confident in their expertise will have greater job satisfaction, and will deliver higher standards. That is why I am so keen to support training initiatives for housekeepers and domestic staff. Both the facilities good practice guides and the standards for environmental cleanliness emphasise the role of training, and we expect all trust chief executives to act on them.
  That brings me to our final strand of work, which involves improving monitoring, evaluation and implementation. We are tackling that at all levels—from that of the individual housekeeper on the ward to that of data-gathering for the whole NHS. At grass-roots level, we want people to take pride in their work. We know that when people feel ownership of their environment, they take better care of it. We know that training people to explicit standards enables them to judge their own performance. One of the criteria in the Health Facilities Consortium good practice guides relates to the number of domestic staff with national vocational qualifications. By encouraging training, we are encouraging all housekeepers and cleaners to evaluate their own service.
  Our latest figures tell me that each acute trust now has an infection control team, but in the past there have been problems. There have not always been clear lines of accountability, and a significant number of trusts have reported that they do not have adequate support. We have therefore taken steps to help infection control teams to carry out their work, and also to monitor progress. The NHS action plan enshrined in health service circular 2000/02 identifies the need to ensure robust arrangements, with specific targets to cover issues related to infection
  1118
  control teams. We have also made available a patients' journey toolkit from NHS Estates—a simple audit form that tracks patients through their hospital experience. It is filled in by the patient; trusts can use it to identify areas for improvement, and can use it again to measure the impact of their efforts.
  Local evaluation is essential, but we must also monitor progress at the centre. All trust chief executives were required to complete baseline assessments in March this year against the controls assurance standards. They must report them to regional offices by July, outlining the actions that they intend to take. We have also introduced monitoring arrangements led by regional directors of public health and performance management. They will be charged with maintaining the reporting system, supporting trusts and—importantly—establishing early warning systems. We have asked the NHS Executive board to monitor progress. We need to measure costs, but also to ensure that management systems are in place.
  There is, however, another issue that is worth considering. Even if cleaning had no infection control aspects and did not cost money, it would still matter to this Government, for the simple reason that it matters to patients. It is just not good enough for patients to have to receive care in dirty wards. It is not good enough for visitors to have to negotiate piles of cigarette ends outside hospital entrances, and it is not good enough for staff to carry out their work in substandard conditions.
  Those considerations are not just the icing on the cake; we are determined to put them high on the agenda of every trust. I know that the hon. Lady's constituents will be pleased to learn that their local hospitals are receiving practical help from us, in the form of clear standards. That clarity, along with clear lines of accountability, will ensure that dirty hospitals are stamped out.
  I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue, and for giving me an opportunity to assure the House—and her constituents—that across the board we are committed to improving cleanliness, and that we have the means to ensure that that aim is achieved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Science-based Innovation
[Relevant document: Second Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 195.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.31 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: It is my pleasure to start the debate. I sympathise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the electronics in the Chamber are still being proven and the clocks are wrong. We understand that it will take a little time to get the technology working properly.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Science and Technology Committee's report on innovation in the physical sciences and engineering industries. My contribution will be modest and short because other Committee members, past and present, want to speak. It is only right that they have a chance to do so because I have the privilege of being able to speak in every debate on such matters. The Minister has kindly accepted my apology for the fact that I shall have to leave the debate at 4.10 pm to Chair the Finance Bill at 4.30 pm. I will not be able to hear her response, but I promise to read it in Hansard as soon as I receive it.
Innovation starts with invention and goes on to development. I shall illustrate that by taking from my top pocket my orange Sainsbury's card—I hope that no one will reveal to the Minister responsible for science that I am using this piece of plastic for my demonstration. Way back in the early 1960s when I was a research chemist for ICI, I worked on co-polymers of polypropylene. To test the co-polymers that I was making, we used to mould a comb, which was a good mould to use because if the plastic flowed properly, it would go into the teeth of the comb and fill the comb mould. We used to test the combs—red, blue or yellow combs—in a variety of ways, one of which was to bend the comb to see whether there was any stress whitening. As hon. Members can see, as I bend my Sainsbury's card, the orange changes to white where it is stress whitened. As a research chemist, that worried me.
I had discovered that, when bent, coloured plastic would whiten through stress, but it did not please me that the combs or anything else made from my plastic, for which I obtained various patents, would distort and whiten in that way. I worked on my co-polymers until I found some that did not whiten when subject to stress. Was I not clever to work out how to get rid of that alleged defect? How much more clever would I have been had I realised that I had invented Dynotape and had I gone on to market it. Dynotape works by stress whitening coloured plastic. I used my science to get rid of the problem instead of turning my discovery into an invention and marketing it. Therefore, although I can claim to be a scientist, possibly a poor one, I cannot
266WH
claim to be an innovator because I failed to discover Dynotape, even though I had the knowledge some years before the product came out.
Innovation is an inherently dynamic and evolutionary process. Somewhat like a creative idea, it can be encouraged and the correct environment can be provided to allow it to mature, but it cannot be forced. There is no doubt that innovation depends on a good science base, and we have a very good science base in the United Kingdom. Why, therefore, do we have successful innovation in biosciences but not so much innovation in the physical sciences and engineering? If we are to have innovation in the physical sciences, we must focus on marrying together scientific advances with products and processes.
For many years, the manufacturing sector has not been our strong suit, and if the manufacturing sector is not strong, there is not always a specific outlet for engineering invention. By contrast, innovation in biosciences depends on developing links between the UK's world-class biosciences base—that includes universities, charities and industries—and commercial organisations, where strong, mature links with specific applications exist, particularly in the case of applied biosciences such as drugs.
The Government's response to our report was fair and of great interest. The Government accept that they have a role to play in promoting innovation. They quoted the fact that there is an innovations unit at the Department of Trade and Industry, with 25 secondees who come from small and medium-sized enterprises, large companies, finance houses and academia. The Government readily admit that those secondees to the DTI contribute their wide experience to the Government's work on external and general policy.
The Government also accept the point made in the report that, in all aspects of engineering, whether it is electronic, civil or mechanical, the engineering community provides wealth creation and improves the quality of life for UK citizens. Only through inventiveness and keeping a technological edge on other countries—and thereby ensuring engineering sales abroad as well as at home—can the community provide that quality of life and wealth creation.
The Government-I am not speaking specifically of this Government, but of the previous one also—accept that engineering and the physical sciences are important to our national well being. However, it is disappointing to note that since 1993, UK expenditure on research and development has fallen as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The UK has had the biggest fall of any country in the G7. The Government will argue—we may hear it from the Minister—that one reason for the fall in research and development expenditure as a percentage of GDP is that GDP is rising. There is no doubt that that is one reason. However, if GDP is rising, it is beholden on the Government to try to lift research and development expenditure in line with that rise. It is easier to achieve that when GDP is rising than when it is falling. I am sure that the Government will wish to continue research expenditure.
We are fifth out the seven countries in the G7, and behind us are Canada—surprisingly—and Italy. The good news is that since 1997, there has been a check in

267WH
the decline in research and development expenditure. I hope that that stable situation will now become an upturn.
Despite the disappointingly low funding for research and development, we concluded in our report—and no witnesses denied this conclusion—that our relatively poor innovation record in engineering and the physical sciences is not the result of a weakness in our science base. On the contrary, our science base is good. The science base produces more innovative ideas than are taken up commercially. The UK is strong in scientific invention, but weak at applying and exploiting those inventions. We said in our report that, to a large extent, industry is responsible for the failure to exploit inventions. We generally found a weakness in exploiting close to the market and what is close to the market is an industry rather than a Government responsibility. The Government said, fairly, that that may be true, but they did not accept that the science base itself had no responsibility for turning a good idea into an exploitable product. Indeed, the Government have gone out of their way to make it clear that the science base must turn some of its ideas into products that can be exploited and sold.
The Government say that they are encouraging that by such things as university challenge, science enterprise challenge, higher education reach out, community fund and so on, and I am glad to hear that. However, I suggest to the Minister that, excellent though those schemes are, they are diverse, rather small and poorly understood. Perhaps it would be helpful if, instead of having so many disparate schemes, the Government considered combining them, as far as possible, into larger schemes. That would cut out many of the administration costs and some of the red tape, and probably reduce some of the bidding problems that organisations experience when they are looking for money. It would be easier to understand the funding mechanism if all the schemes were rolled into one.
The Government can also help through research and development tax credits. The Select Committee discussed tax credits in the previous Parliament. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams)—I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend because he is that in the Select Committee—will recall that that was discussed by the Committee before I joined. We welcome the fact that a tax credit scheme is in place for small companies. We said in our report that we thought that the Government should consider introducing a similar scheme for larger companies, although we accept that such a scheme would be expensive and that its effects would be difficult to monitor. There could also be a danger of the scheme and the money becoming unfocused. As, by and large, large companies will do research and development anyway, Government money or tax concessions are best targeted on small and medium-sized enterprises.
It is said that fear of bankruptcy and the associated stigma hinders risk taking. The United States and some continental European companies have more of what is called an enlightened approach to bankruptcy and insolvency. We asked the Secretary of State to review legislation on bankruptcy and insolvency and to introduce a distinction between responsible
268WH
entrepreneurs who get into trouble and people who engage in reckless business activities. He has agreed to do so, and we look forward to considering the review and its findings in due course.
We know that the Government are thinking of relaxing the rules on exemption of personal property. In other words, if people put up their houses as security when they are inventing a product or taking risks for which they need capital, their houses will be exempted from bankruptcy proceedings. That is a good way of helping entrepreneurs. If they are risking their savings, they should not have to risk their houses as well. We must, however, be careful of taking too casual an approach and of upsetting creditors. We do not want to encourage entrepreneurs to the extent that creditors do not get paid. The creditors who supply entrepreneurs are often entrepreneurs in their own right. Driving creditors to the wall by being more lenient on some larger entrepreneurs might end up hurting the smallest of the entrepreneurs-the creditors. I urge the Government to bear in mind while they are considering new bankruptcy rules that the smaller creditors must always be remembered in any changes.
Finally, we stressed that the Government should have two key goals. First, they should ensure that there is a strong public sector and that education and the science base are properly managed and adequately financed. That is how we can find the scientific and engineering staff who are necessary to help entrepreneurs along the way. Without staff, we can have nothing. Secondly, a sound economic and fiscal environment is necessary to support those who innovate and take risks. After all, a stable environment and economy is one risk less for the serial risk takers. I know that the Government take seriously their responsibility in that regard. The additional £1 billion in the comprehensive spending review is a demonstration of their earnestness.
The population's health and living standards depend to a large extent on our innovations. The country's affluence depends on the trading products that originate from innovation and a large part of the Government's revenue comes from taxing companies and people associated with innovations from the last century. The Government would be wise to continue to ensure that the scientific goose is well looked after and properly fed if they want to maintain a steady supply of innovative golden eggs.
2.49 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: As a member of the Select Committee, I must say that it is a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark). I say that in the same spirit as that in which he spoke of my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).
Producing the report has been an exciting experience. It took a long time to do so—I think that 18 months passed between the moment that we started and the point at which we reached our final deliberations. The report makes many recommendations—38, I think. I want to focus on the way in which the report relates to the area that I represent: the north-east and Teesside.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, the report talks about ideas of innovation and manufacturing, both of which have gone hand in glove.

269WH
I want to highlight some of those ideas, discussing in particular paragraphs 56 to 58 and recommendations (1), (m), and (n). They articulate the spirit of creating a climate of innovation and technology for small and medium enterprises.
The paragraphs deal with the need to develop proper and lasting links between innovation and finance capital. State institutions can help directly. Seedcorn funding for innovative ideas can come from universities, which in turn are helped by Government in establishing funding streams. My hon. Friend referred to the university challenge scheme, which is cited in paragraph 56 as a key agency.
Funding can come from other agencies. Local authorities may give funds directly and establish technology companies. European structural and know-how funds can assist. Money can come from local branches of Business Link and special funds directed by local training and enterprise councils. Those measures are welcome but they do not meet the central needs of small and medium employers involved in developing science-based industries. They do not help those employers to access cash to generate innovation over a longer time scale.
Much central and local state funding is geared towards direct job creation. Although high-quality jobs have been and will be created in science-based industry, they cannot always be created in the time scale required by state funders. The need for widening access to private capital funding for innovative industries is therefore imperative. Nowhere is that more important than in the manufacturing heartlands where the presence of finance capital firms is arguably weakest. I am sure that finance capital is thriving and pulsing on the M4 corridor, silicon fen and the City of London, but whether the same is true in the north-east, west Cumbria or south Yorkshire is debatable. What is not debatable is the fact that there are science and innovation-based companies in those regions.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an estimated 23,000 people work in the sector in my region of the north-east. As one would expect, the sector is varied, ranging from pharmaceuticals to surgical instrument manufacture; from innovative chemical processes to the manufacture of optical equipment; and from software development and publishing to aerospace component manufacture. The sector is growing. The gap in high-tech employment between the north-east and the United Kingdom average reduced from 0.9 per cent. to 0.2 per cent. from 1991 to 1997.
There is still room for growth. Growth in key areas has been aided by the strategic decisions of companies based in the region to diversify their product range and to move from core products to higher value-added manufacturing. That has been especially true of the chemical industry, which is still the major player on Teesside. At £28,750, the emerging bio-science sector has, with the pharmaceutical sector, the highest research and development investment per employee in the region, especially compared with the software and IT industries.
The regional firms are based on the logistics of what some wish to call the old economy—characterised by large size, defined production and supply-chain requirements. Paradoxically, those firms provide
270WH
lucrative opportunities for small IT companies in the application of bespoke software and systems. A local pool of talent has been established, often based on the original work of the regional universities in setting up specialist computing and software centres.
The regional IT industry continues to grow apace. It is often driven forward by spin-offs from the academic and business worlds, which have the flexibility to map the market and to attach themselves to the needs of large companies and key players in the public sector that have the same IT needs. However, as I said earlier, those new players need capital financing if they are to overcome structural issues in their field of work. The most important one is that core professionals, whether IT specialists, graduate engineers or chemists, are in a sellers' market. They can attract premium salaries from anywhere in the UK or, indeed, the world. They work in a global environment and have no cultural inhibitions about doing so. We want them to stay in the region or in our country, so that their expertise can be used for its economic and social good.
The ways to make that happen are, first, reinforcing their core employment, through the work of regional universities and technology and innovation centres, and secondly, enabling their potential to be fully backed by finance capital, which can help employers grow and prosper, as well as, in future, back the ideas of key people for the creation of new companies and firms. That was the type of research and finance infrastructure that underpinned the development of silicon valley. That valley around Santa Clara grew into one of the world's economic powerhouses.
There is no reason why we cannot recreate that effect in my region, the north-east of England, or in other regions. Perhaps the key issue is the cultural conservatism of the finance sector. It is all too easy to demonstrate the innate profitability of a new property development, a new out-of-town shopping or leisure park or executive housing. It is probably slightly harder to convince a hard-headed banker of the innate profitability of a new manufacturing process—even one in a mature industry or promoted by a market leader. Now that the dot.com bubble has burst, it will be much harder to convince a venture capitalist of the worth of a new and untested approach to production innovation or an entirely new product or new IT application that exists only in cyberspace or the head of the program writer.
How should we go about breaking down that cultural barrier? The Science and Technology Committee's recommendation in paragraph 57 of the report makes a start. The suggestions of the Bank of England witnesses about the creation of a new breed of intermediaries, whom they call venture catalysts, could help. Those people could act as points of reference for scientists and high-tech entrepreneurs and for the finance capital industry. They could help to demystify science-based projects for the venture capitalists, to show that seemingly arcane ideas can have both relevance and profit potential. They could also help to prepare people whose only previous experience of planning has been in marshalling scientific and technological ideas for development to explore the arcane arts of preparing robust business plans.
The Committee suggests that the vehicle for setting up and resourcing a network of such venture catalysts could be the local branches of Business Link. I strongly

271WH
agree. It is an excellent idea and I recommend it to the Minister. The Business Link network in the north-east, which is changing into the new small business service, now possesses the range of contacts and institutional advisers needed to undertake such a task.
Recommendation (n) in paragraph 58 of the report argues in support of business angels, because they have a valuable role to play in helping to provide risk capital to small unquoted companies. The report defines business angels as people who possess a specific expertise in an area of industry, a good informal network of like-minded people and access to liquid reserves. Such people often have the flexibility to fill the gap between normal SME debt finance provided by the clearing banks, and the higher amounts deemed worthy by venture capitalists who, as ever, must look to future rates of return. They are becoming increasingly important in backing high-tech firm formation.
According to the Bank of England, registered business angels have made 227 investments in 223 registered companies, the majority of which were technology-based companies. That is a good start, but it is still below the level in competitor countries, most notably the United States.
The Department of Trade and Industry has researched the matter and argues that the need to create a network of intermediaries to match such active finance entrepreneurs with science-based fledgling businesses is the key to squaring the circle. However, we do not want to create yet another charmed circle of advisors and mentors who are based in areas where science-based industries are already flourishing. Left to market forces and identified opportunity alone, the cash will merely gravitate to the south-east.
The Committee and I believe that the key is to house such activities in the new regional development agencies. The RDA in my region—One NorthEast—has already risen to the challenge and identified the growth sectors that it wants to back. Those sectors are coterminous with the nationally identified, high-tech and emerging sectors in the competitiveness White Paper that was published in December 1998. One NorthEast's regional economic strategy boldly gives prominence to backing the region's universities and building on the interface between science, universities and local business institutions. It recognises the opportunities that can arise from the spin-out and licensing of university research and development, and the way in which the network of innovation centres and technology institutes that are based in the north-east can help those opportunities to be realised.
The Committee seeks to build on those living, breathing initiatives by introducing a new role that marries scientific and innovation know-how to the availability of cash backing for growth. I know that the One NorthEast board, senior management and the technology community in my region will greet that enthusiastically.
Historically, the north-east has been the birthplace of technology in communications, mining, engineering, technological applications in metal manufacture and in chemicals and electronics that has changed the world. The regional finance networks of town banks brought
272WH
those technologies to the market. Unfortunately, that finance network no longer exists. However, the region now stands at the dawn of a new technological age. Marrying the skills, talents and abilities that I know exist in my region to the availability of finance capital is the key issue.
The report contains many exciting proposals that should all be implemented regionally, to provide finance, as well as across the country, with the support of business angels. I urge the Government to adopt many of the new ideas. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce has already responded positively. I hope that the points on which I have focused regarding the north-east will receive a warm welcome from her.
3.4 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am pleased to take part in this debate on innovation in physical science and engineering, and to follow both the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who placed such a strong emphasis on manufacturing. I know that you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, believe strongly in our manufacturing industries. I read a chart yesterday in which Wales was the third of all regions in Britain in terms of the overall percentage of gross domestic product based in manufacturing industry. The west midlands ranked the highest.
The report is an important document. I have taken part in Select Committees during my 12 years in Parliament, and in the Science and Technology Committee in particular since its inception in 1992. During the previous Parliament, we undertook a major inquiry into genetics, particularly the human genome project, and we also examined the work of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
At the outset of the present Parliament, the Select Committee realised that it had left engineering and physical science relatively uncovered in the previous Session, so we set out to make up that shortfall. When we took our decisions in 1997, I did not realise that we would be so thorough in examining engineering and physical science. Our terms of reference were drawn up in October 1997 and the report was published in February this year—two and a half years later—after a mammoth effort.
Several visits took place. I particularly remember our visit to Gordon Edge at his impressive establishment at Generics in Cambridge. We also visited Oxford Instruments and St. John's innovation centre at Oxford. We went to the United States, where we visited the Massachusetts institute of technology in Boston. It was a culture shock to encounter in Massachusetts the attitude towards applying science to innovation in manufacturing. The visit was most illuminating. The Committee also visited Germany: unfortunately, I could not go on that occasion, but I had been there on an earlier Select Committee visit. Germany is certainly a world leader in technological innovation and the quality of its engineering industries. We also conducted 20 oral evidence sessions with a variety of bodies. All that is distilled in our report.

273WH
The first question put to me, as to our Chairman earlier, was why we are more successful as a nation at innovation in the biological than in the physical sciences. I do not know exactly why, although I had some preconceptions. As the report mentions, we need to invest far more heavily in development for the physical sciences. The majority of investment in the biological sciences is for research. The development side of research and development is more expensive in the engineering and physical sciences. I shall return to that issue later.
There may be a problem with our research council structure. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council necessarily does pure, blue-sky research. It is 100 per cent. academic, but there are massive spin-offs from its academic pursuits. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Medical Research Council are obviously more medical and have strong links with the pharmaceutical industry. The linkage between industry and academia is stronger in those research councils. It is a bit of an anomaly that the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council is rather blue sky. One would have expected it to have stronger links with our manufacturing industries.
I visited Oxford with Peter Williams, the chairman of Oxford Instruments, who is a distinguished figure on many committees. It was a revelation to discover that he felt that the work of the EPSRC is blue sky. Its entire emphasis is academic. He is greatly involved in the application of research ideas, but he felt that, if we train scientists to think, learn and understand science and pursue research at the highest level, they can turn their minds equally efficiently to applied science once they have completed their degrees or doctorates. I still feel that the EPSRC needs to be looked at by its senior members. It is something of an anomaly that the MRC is more focused on applied science than the EPSRC.
The Government, in their reply to the Select Committee's report, refer to the need for a greater onus on the science base in those areas to reach more strongly towards innovation. Like our Chairman, my feeling throughout our inquiry was that the science base in Britain is strong. Obviously there are some concerns that, as higher education has expanded, there has been a large influx of students in the arts and non-sciences, but no equivalent expansion in physical science and engineering. I am reassured that the quality of people in universities is good and that the science base is producing people with plenty of ideas.
Britain is as inventive now as it was 20, 50 or 100 years ago. Without doubt, we are producing the ideas. There is unanimity this afternoon and all our witnesses were unanimous in believing that the British genius for invention is abundantly there. It is a question of harnessing those ideas. The inventiveness that we associate with our universities can be developed in their research departments. It is found in individuals too, sometimes quite surprisingly. One thinks of James Dyson and his Cyclone and how he produced an entirely new type of vacuum cleaner. He went into manufacturing and learned the skills as he went along.
I do not know whether Trevor Bayliss has any academic qualifications in physics or in engineering, but his presentation to us and his clockwork radio and other inventions were very challenging. Those of us who have
274WH
come through it think that school, A-levels and higher education is the conveyor belt that produces inventors. Obviously there is another conveyor belt, or perhaps it is not a conveyor belt at all. People out there are thinking all the time in a challenging way. Trevor Bayliss's idea of an academy of inventors sounded a bit strange; nevertheless, I see what he means. That idea is moving forward.
At the evidence session that I chaired with the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, I was greatly impressed by its director, John Chisholm. He said that, for the past decade, DERA and the defence establishment had been bursting with ideas that could be applied. Those ideas have been thought out and developed with their application to defence in mind, but they would be available to harness if we had different objectives. The public-private partnership that we are developing for DERA might, therefore, give the organisation the commercial freedom to consider other objectives, release some of its energies and develop.
It is important that there is a multiplicity of organisations to develop ideas and turn them into useful products. In that respect, Generics in Cambridge has a wonderful structure. We had a presentation on the Cambridge phenomenon and how dozens of highly successful companies at the forefront of technology have set up there and created tens of thousands of jobs—so many that they are running out of space. I wish that such centres of excellence existed around all our universities. Obviously, there are examples in Oxford, too, such as St. John's innovation centre. Science parks are developing around all our higher education centres.
My visits reminded me of the visits that we made to the Fraunhofer, Steinbeis and Max Planck institutes in Germany in 1995 in connection with an inquiry into parallel areas. We are making the necessary changes a little later than Germany, which has a well-evolved middle tier that combines universities and higher education in one broad stream. Industry is out there, too. That middle tier permits the fertilisation of ideas, and networks are developing between higher education and industry. That middle tier is important because it is where ideas can be developed into useful products.
The topic of technology foresight was raised with most of the Committee's witnesses. It was introduced in 1993, and the forward look which is published every year is of value. There were some critical assessments of it, but its great value is in establishing more and more networks. There are opportunities for people to meet and exchange ideas across disciplines. Members of the Royal Society of Chemistry talked to the Committee, and one idea that stuck in my mind was car boot sales—inexpensive collections of scientists in different areas meeting to discuss topics—
Dr. Michael Clark: Stolen ideas.
Mr. Williams: To share and develop ideas that they found successful.
One criticism of technology foresight was that ideas were not filtering down sufficiently to small and medium enterprises—the SMEs. Large companies have their own technology foresight and their own ideas, and they learn something from the relevant publications and the work that goes into preparing them. However, those ideas require greater diffusion downwards.

275WH
As regards the Committee's American visit, the MIT has an incredible record in setting up businesses. I cannot remember how many of the world's great multinational companies had their origins in Boston. I read chemistry at Oxford; it was a very good course and I carried on for my DPhil, but it was a purely academic discipline. We did not talk about industry, or about pollution and so on; nothing was said on the application of science or on its downside. I learned about those after I had left university. I enjoyed all the work, but 5 or 10 per cent. of the course should have been about application, and the importance of ICI, Glaxo and the other trading companies, and about the negatives, the problems of pollution, chemicals in the environment and so on.
At MIT, applied science is as important as pure science and great pride was taken in the application of science to improve the quality of life and the economy of the United States. Management is taught as a component of degree courses. That was certainly not the case when I was at university. I visited a school of manufacturing industry in Cambridge where management is part of degree and postgraduate courses.
During the 1960s and 1970s, MIT had public funding from defence industry projects, but in the 1980s and 1990s, because of the peace dividend, the amount of available public funding on which MIT could draw diminished, so it had to diversify. It went to companies in different parts of the United States, looked at their products and offered its services to improve product design. It was a kind of outreach from MIT into industry. The contracts resulting from that innovation replaced much of the defence money that was lost. That was a culture change; no British university or science park has done quite the same thing, although having the institutions on which to develop is a start.
The American approach is more adventurous and risk taking; the word "entrepreneur" came up many times. The venture capital industry is much more developed in the United States than it is in Britain, but in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury such thinking is being put into practice. We know what works in the United States, and if we want to take its good features and incorporate them into the British economy we can do so.
The Guardian on 8 May, quoting the prelude to a speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about venture capital, stated:
UK pension funds invest only 0.5 per cent. of their funds in venture capital, compared to 5 per cent. in the US.
We all know that, but in the past few years there has been a tenfold difference in the proportion of Britain's wealth that is available for new ideas and new companies in venture capital. It was no surprise to me that, when the dark clouds loomed over the west midlands and the Government and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were working on the rescue of Rover by the Phoenix group, the money came not from a British bank but from an American bank, which eventually guaranteed the £200 million required. Unfortunately, the City is risk averse. I do not know how we can tackle that, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made suggestions in his speech last Tuesday
276WH
to the trustees of pension funds and the consultants whom they hire. Something is amiss institutionally when we are afraid of putting the wealth that we have created behind British industry or the newer ideas and small ventures in British industry.
The Select Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Rayleigh, mentioned the role of tax incentives. In a previous Select Committee, Jeremy Bray, the former Member for Motherwell, South and science spokesman for the Labour Opposition for several years, was a regular and powerful advocate of tax incentives for research and development. He produced research evidence showing how effective they can be. I was pleased that, in earlier Budgets, the Government recognised that fact and offered considerable help to small and medium enterprises. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Rayleigh. The Government should consider extending those schemes to large companies.
Even given the expense, the problems of definition and other matters, our record on research and development in industry is disappointing. In the scoreboard that is published every year, we are fifth out of the seven. We languish there, just about holding our own, and we should not be there. People in Britain have many ideas that could be developed, and we should be climbing that league. If the Government used our surpluses to extend some of the schemes that already exist for research and development, they would receive a good return on that investment.
The report also discusses the role of demonstration projects, about which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) will talk later. That is another difference between engineering and physical sciences and biological and medical research. In scaling up, development involves large costs. The Government should offer more help for those demonstration projects.
I have called for Government help, so I must mention the £22 billion that the mobile phone licences will raise. All sorts of people have made all sorts of claims on that money.
Dr. Kumar: People such as pensioners.
Mr. Williams: Yes, pensioners and the health service have claims, and Wales has asked for matched funds. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is wisely thinking of using the money to pay off Government debt, so there will be no quick decision on its use.
I suggest that the best use of the money would be to help science research and development. The money came from innovation in the engineering and physical science—based industries, and the best support for long—term development would be to put that £22 billion—which will, I believe, arrive in a cash stream of about £2 billion a year for the next 10 years—into the science budget. It could provide incentives for research and development and improve the infrastructure. Our

277WH
report describes many of those ideas in detail, and I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will seriously take them into account.
Several hon. Members rose—
(Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Having called three doctors in succession, I now intend to break that sequence, although I shall call somebody with considerable experience of an important industry.
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As this is my last connection with the Science and Technology Committee, I should like to say how enjoyable and stimulating it has been to work with other Committee members, especially the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), whom I also regard as an hon. Friend in this context. The experience has been exhilarating and enjoyable.
Innovation is a topic on which much has been written and on which there is a substantial body of research. The high reputations and hands-on experience of the witnesses who mapped out common ground were a distinctive feature of the inquiry. There was a substantial consensus on innovation, although it was not entirely uniform. The volume of evidence that is published with the report will be a good source of information for planners, policy makers and students. The report is a good distillation of the understanding that was derived from witnesses and of the conclusions that flowed from that understanding.
We began by considering why Britain is good at innovation based on the biological sciences but poor at innovation based on engineering and the physical sciences. That clear perception shaped our terms of reference and the course of the inquiry. If we contrast the history of the pharmaceuticals industry in Britain with the history of the motor car industry, the machine tool industry, the electronics industry and engineering more generally, we see that the truth of that observation is beyond question. That view came out strongly from our witnesses. No one dissented from it.
There was also substantial agreement on the nature of innovation. There was common agreement among the witnesses, but the word "innovation" is often used loosely. Therefore, it is important to say what it is not: it is not synonymous with research and development, science, invention or technology. Academic discussion often equates innovation with academic interests and research or with research that is sponsored by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Those perform vital functions that generate ideas, but in themselves they are not innovation.
Innovation involves the presentation of a new product to a market or a new process to commercial production. It means generating new ideas and understanding the function of research, including research that is supported by the Government through research councils and universities. Innovation identifies what a defined market is likely to require, which is the process of market research or market investigation. It brings together various technologies to satisfy that
278WH
market demand as part of the process of design and development. Innovation establishes a manufacturing process, known as process development, which is sometimes overlooked. Finally, it means commercially launching a product on to the market. Innovation can fail at any one of those stages. To discover the cause of our poor performance, we must take into account that range of stages, and not purely the scientific beginnings of research.
That definition or model of innovation was widely agreed by the Confederation of British Industry, the OECD, MIT and industry in general, so there is no ambiguity about the meaning of innovation. Against that background, why are bioscience-based industries different from engineering and physical science-based industries? The essential difference is this. If one takes pharmaceuticals as the most obvious bioscience-based industry, the risk lies in successful research and the effectiveness and safety of a drug being proved by the regulatory process. Once that has been done, the marketing is a subsidiary activity, because the disease targeted by the drug is self-evident. Marketing and manufacturing are not risky; research carries the greatest burden of risk. The situation is very different in engineering and physical science-based industries. Understanding what the market wants and adapting various technologies to meet that through the process of development is difficult, risky and increasingly expensive. There may be very little need for new research in the process of innovation based on physical science and engineering—much of the research may have been done years before, perhaps topped up by more recent research. The difference is that there is far greater dependence on market research and development, which distinguishes engineering and physical science-based industries from innovation in the pharmaceutical and agrichemical industries.
What is the diagnosis of why innovation is weak in engineering and physical science-based industries? The situation is summed up by a quotation from the Select Committee's report:
Market research, design and development are skimped, under-funded and inadequate in engineering and physical science based companies.
Dr. Michael Clark: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. I am interested in the distinction that he makes between innovation in physical sciences and innovation in biological sciences. To put it in a nutshell, does he agree that, in the case of biological sciences, there is a market—namely, a disease—that desperately wants a product, but in the case of engineering and physical sciences, the product desperately wants a market?
Mr. Beard: There is a great deal of truth in that. To put it in similar terms to those used by the hon. Gentleman, the difference is that in the biological sciences, it is a matter of science push, because the markets are identifiable, but in engineering and physical sciences, it is a matter of market pull. That is where the difference in performance and complexity lies.
As I have mentioned, development is an expensive process. In many cases, that process must end with a prototype or a demonstration project to see how things work. It is frequently a matter of putting together

279WH
disparate technologies, and the process of development is in making them work harmoniously for the purpose in hand. As my hon. Friends have mentioned, there is substantial evidence that expenditure on that is skimped. Aeronautical developments tend to be carried out by force of circumstances because people want to see aeroplanes fly, but in other areas development is not carried through to the extent that is necessary to demonstrate to a market that a product is viable and useful. It is in those areas of development and market assessment that Japanese and American strength lies. That is why, although Britain generates so many ideas from the fertile soil of research, things invented here are so often made commercial in America and Japan. We should aim to avoid that if we are to become a knowledge-based economy, with our prosperity benefiting fully from the fruits of our rich, national ingenuity.
A subordinate aspect to the question why we are not as good as America and Japan at developing ideas is summed up in a phrase coined by MIT—the "dignity of applied knowledge". Too often, the academic attitude in Britain is that pure science is more important, which is where the good brains go, and that the second-class brains go for applied science. That is futile, stupid and plainly wrong. I have spent a substantial part of my career in applied science, and I can say from first-hand experience that the intellectual challenge of applying science is just as great, and in many instances greater, than making the initial discovery and doing the research, because it is far more complex. That myth must be ruthlessly dispelled.
We must also stress—this comes up time and again in Government policy—that our failure is not a failure to generate new ideas. We may say it, but our actions go against it. As the report says, there is no evidence of any shortage of ideas and knowledge emerging from engineering and physical science research undertaken in universities and industry. The science base undoubtedly needs protecting. It was certainly going downhill, and it is to the Government's immense credit that they made £1.4 billion available, in addition to the money that came from the Wellcome Trust, to ensure that that did not continue. We must be vigilant to ensure that the science base remains healthy, but we should not pretend that we are doing something substantial to cure our failure in innovation, which is the subject of today's debate.
The position is not a happy one. Indeed, it is worsening. Nor is the problem new. It goes back at least to the 1970s, but it is getting worse. University research is directed to acquiring knowledge; so is the work of research councils. The development side of the process is universally the responsibility of industry. Only industry can bring together the technological know-how, the finance, the capacity to make a commercial product and the necessary market. No amount of extra money for universities will improve development: it is essentially a job for industry.
We should therefore consider the Department of Trade and Industry's research and technology scoreboard and some of the other published figures which are available. Business enterprise research and development—for the reasons that I gave earlier, it is the
280WH
main source of development expenditure—has grown more slowly in Britain than in any other developed nation. In 1970, we were second to the United States, but we are now fifth. That is well illustrated by figure 2 on page xvi of the report. The DTI's scoreboard shows that trend to be concentrated in the industries that we are discussing. That is illustrated in figure 4 on page xviii, which shows that, in investment in research and development, the pharmaceuticals industry holds its own compared with its world competitors.
Calculated as a proportion of turnover, the engineering and machinery, electronics and electrical, software and information industries spend on what is called R and D, but is actually development, between a quarter and a half of what their international competitors spend. We cannot sustain that position. The picture will not improve if we fall further and further behind while our competitors in this era of development continue to build up more and more resources. The picture is clearly set out in paragraphs 16 to 35 of the report. For anyone who takes an interest in the future of manufacturing industry, as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, those paragraphs make grim reading. For anyone who believes that manufacturing cannot be allowed to disappear from the spectrum of economic activities, the report points to something that must be corrected.
I hope that those paragraphs will serve as the starting point for a plan of action when the Government publish a White Paper on innovation—one, we hope, without any tokenism or misdiagnosis. The Government response to our report is, at the least, complacent, if not monumentally complacent, and is redolent of a lack of understanding of the actual state of UK industry. Paragraph 10 on page 3 of the response states:
The Government acknowledges that the UK expenditure on research and development is not as high as some of its international competitors and could be better.
That is in the light of all the evidence in those other paragraphs and figures. The Government respond to our report as though they were a parent receiving a school report saying that their child had just fallen behind in class. Their response does not reflect the seriousness of the position. It does not reflect the fact that spending on research and development continues on a downward spiral.
A little further down in the same paragraph, the Government response continues:
However, recent figures, just published, show an arrest of the 1993–97 decline in the UK's gross expenditure on research and development as a ratio of GDP.
That decline has been going on since the 1970s and the figures in our report show that it continues. At best, the Government pick out one figure and claim that the past 20 years have been wiped out, that that one figure shows that the trend has changed and that we do not need to bother about this any more. That is exactly what is said in the third quotation to which I should like to refer:
A continued improvement in gross expenditure on research and development into the future would indicate an increasing focus on innovation and research and development as key drivers in the knowledge-based economy.
That is Dr. Chadman personified. We have one favourable figure, which is not quoted, and we suddenly live in the best of all possible worlds. The complacency

281WH
reflected there makes one question the adequacy of the advice that the Government are receiving. They deserve immense credit for what has already been done for the science base, but that is not what we are discussing. I hope that, when the Select Committee responds to that Government paper, it will request a fuller reply to the points that it made in paragraphs 16 to 42 of its report. The scope for Government action may be limited, but that is no excuse for deceiving oneself and ignoring a major national issue.
I would not quarrel with Government policy in general. The central purposes of Government policy on science and innovation have been to secure a healthy science and engineering base—they have achieved that—and to provide trained and experienced scientists who can go out into industry or staff research organisations throughout the country. Those are proper priorities for the Government. Everyone in industry would recognise that there is no substitute for that work, as they cannot do it for themselves. Everyone in industry would also recognise that the research and development that is done by universities and research councils should be speculative, and that a large proportion of it should be blue-sky work, as industry cannot undertake such research itself. People in industry are the appliers of science, not the Government.
The Government aim to secure better transfer of science and technology from academia to small and medium companies, which is an excellent ambition. However, it should be plainly stated that, if those small and medium organisations do not put money into development, there will be nowhere for ideas from academia to transfer to. Something must be done to ensure prosperity in that respect.
I am a great supporter of the Faraday centres, about which the Government have set out some details. They are modelled on the Fraunhofer centres which we all saw in Germany, which are a good example of how transfer can be achieved and small and medium companies can improve their capacity for development. They provide a good bridge enabling scientists and technologists to come from academia. Such people can enter intermediate organisations, become familiar with the needs of industry and then move on; in other words, they have it both ways. We have an urgent problem in this respect. Germany is doing well with the centres and has a record of doing well with them. It has 40-odd institutions, whereas we are talking about eight. One of the besetting and pervasive sins in this field is tokenism. We see a problem on which everybody agrees and then say that we are doing something on the basis of one example. Such an approach does not deal with problems adequately.
The report provides an excellent model of innovation and an excellent diagnosis of where this country's problems lie. I hope that, as one of the major outcomes of the report, the forthcoming White Paper on innovation will take that model and diagnosis as a beginning and address the problems. In the past, we have put money into the early stage, but not into where the difficulty lies—development. We must tackle that problem one way or the other. It might be tackled by introducing the sort of tax credits that have been mentioned. I agree with my colleagues that such a scheme needs consideration in relation to larger companies. Although a large part of innovation comes
282WH
through small companies, a substantial proportion will come from big, established companies, which are as guilty as anybody of not investing adequate resources in development.
The field of tokenism must go, so the White Paper on innovation must also provide a coherent policy and get rid of the bewildering array of schemes and devices. It should provide a single policy that clearly addresses the problems set out in the report and that everybody understands. We must stop the game of bidding here and bidding there, which makes securing work in the academic research field similar to visiting a fairground and bidding at various boutiques. That should stop. We must have a national viewpoint on where the issues are and on how we are addressing them. We should then monitor how well we perform against those targets.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now return to the sequence of doctors, so I call Dr. Lynne Jones.
3.54 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with many of the comments made by the previous speakers, who went into considerable detail about the report and the Government's response. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament and participated in the production of a report in 1994 on innovative and competitive technology. Between then and January this year, when the report that we are considering was published, I was struck forcibly by the fact that the Government have taken on board many of the concerns about financial incentives for more investment in research and development. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) emphasised, the incentives and support still very much relate to the research phase.
It is still early days to judge whether the tax incentives will have a substantial impact. More important is that people in companies and research organisations should understand the importance of research and development and of good market research and management in the creation of wealth. People in organisations are the driving force behind investment in research and development, development of new technologies and putting research ideas into the market. The Government have worked to create incentives for investment, but perhaps we have not focused enough on the importance of well-trained people and of the movement of people between sectors, for example from universities and research institutes into business and vice versa.
Many witnesses from business pointed out how difficult it was for them to recruit people who not only had academic qualifications but were of high calibre. There was a distinct shortage. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the Government's complacency in their response—that we are perhaps doing as well as other countries. Even on our visit to America, the country that we are supposed to emulate, people spoke of a shortage of highly educated people with innovative ideas and the research experience and management understanding

283WH
needed to get them off the ground. We can see that effect, because in the United States and, to an extent, in this country, Governments must relax visa requirements for foreign nationals to come to the developed world. Germany is looking to recruit the well-educated work force of Russia and the United States also wants to recruit abroad. Unfortunately, many of our best people are being enticed by those recruitment activities.
That does not matter, as long as the necessary to-ing and fro-ing of people goes on. If it is a two-way process, that is all well and good. People go to other countries, pick up experience and come back. The problem in this country is that it is a one-way process. The important role of scientists and engineers is not acknowledged. People get poor rewards, especially in the public sector, in our universities and our research institutions, in terms of not only salaries but equipment and technical support. People used to come back but are now staying away.
I hope that at the next comprehensive spending review the Government will consider the need to do something about the poor pay and conditions of our academic staff, especially in science and engineering. Many of the vice-chancellors who have provided evidence to our Committee and in written communications to me have noted how difficult it is to retain trained staff. That is especially true in IT, a sector in which people can double their salary by leaving academia. There is no problem with people leaving academia and having experience in the private sector. The problem is that they should also be coming back—there should be a two-way process.
The Government need to be even more hands on. They have been careful in their response to distinguish the role of the private sector in the marketplace. They have wanted a hands-off approach to business development and market investigations. I was struck when we went to Boston, and to the United States generally, that there is far more public-sector intervention in such areas.
We met representatives of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, which was founded by the state. It is an independent public economic development organisation. The state governor appoints the board members. It has gone out and sought to identify and develop clusters. In the Government's response to our report, they say that they cannot create clusters, but that has been shown not to be the case in countries such as the United States.
We saw evidence of the success of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. It has been behind the establishment of five clusters. Its encouragement of the clusters in health care especially, but also in other areas, has promoted spontaneous development elsewhere. It took public sector intervention to get matters moving.
We visited the Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation, which is also a state institution. It started more than 20 years ago with a $10 million endowment. The organisation provides small sums of venture capital—between $750,000 and $2 million—to start up companies with a technological idea. Interestingly, the corporation told us how important it was for it to be involved in the management
284WH
of the companies. It had a policy of taking a share in companies' equity. As a result, the initial endowment has turned over several-fold. For every $1 invested in venture capital, $17.50 is coming back for investment, so the cycle can continue.
We met the director of VenturCom, one of the companies that had been helped. It had the advantage of state support, venture capital and business advice, which brought the engineer—the scientist with the ideas—together with managers. A British manager was involved in that company and the state had provided it with the assistance. The fact that it was close to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology meant that the company had access to cutting-edge research and skilled technicians. So the state created the means by which those companies could thrive.
When we went to Germany, we visited the Herzogenrath technology park. Herzogenrath is a small town with a population of 44,000. Its technology park helps to start up companies by providing business advice as well as a physical infrastructure. It was set up with public money of DM80 million. That level of investment in a small town of 44,000 people would be the envy of cities as large as Birmingham, which cannot secure such an amount.
In our recommendations, we asked the Government to ensure that regional development agencies in conjunction with local authorities had access to adequate capital to develop such business parks and other incubator programmes for new companies. It is disappointing that the only response was that the Chancellor had announced additional funding of £50 million for research and development agencies throughout England. It is better than nothing, but nowhere near the level of state support provided in other countries such as the United States and Germany, which have a better record than we do in promoting links between companies and the engineering and physical sciences.
My final point was not specifically addressed in our report. After it was produced, I attended a seminar at the Royal Society, which was promoted by the Foundation for Science and Technology. The seminar was entitled "UK Missing a Multi-Billion Pound Industry?", which referred to the environmental industry. An important theme that emerged was the Government's role in passing legislation to help new technologies to flourish.
John Waters, the director of an environmental resources management company employing environmental consultants, told us that legislation was the driving force behind the development of environmental technologies. He pointed out that the United Kingdom has only an 8 per cent. share of environmental technology services world wide, compared with Germany's 21 per cent. and 18 per cent. in the United States. Governments in countries where those technologies had taken off had imposed stricter regulations—perhaps providing greater disincentives to polluters—and had invested with the private sector in these important technologies, which have so much potential for future wealth creation.
When talking about future wealth creation, I must mention the car industry. I represent a Birmingham constituency. We are extremely pleased that the Phoenix

285WH
consortium will continue to run Rover at Longbridge and that there is some hope for the future of that organisation. However, in the long term we must diversify our industries and look at new technologies. Companies like Rover should be at the cutting edge of the development of new environmentally sound vehicles, whether for public or private use. The Government must do far more to encourage such developments.
That brings me on quite neatly to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr when he mentioned the large capital asset that the Government are sitting on as a result of the sale of the mobile phone licences. It may surprise hon. Members, but I am not one of those who support spending some of that £22.5 billion on increasing pensions. It is unsound economics to use a capital sum for expenditure that has on-going revenue consequences. Equally, if that money is just being used to pay off the national debt, it would be a wasted opportunity to use it for investment in activities that will create more wealth in this country in terms of business and tax revenues for the Chancellor.
It would be a terrible waste to use all that money merely to pay off debt. Of course, it will mean that an extra £1 billion a year will come in for the Chancellor that could be used to support increased pensions, but the tax revenues are buoyant enough to increase pensions without resorting to such methods. If that money were invested in our public organisations, universities and research institutes, notwithstanding the extra £1 billion that was put in as a result of the comprehensive spending review last year, it still does not get us back up to the proportion of our national wealth that went into research and development 20 or 30 years ago.
I entirely endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr on this matter. This windfall has come as a result of technological advancement. The first time I had a mobile phone was when I was a parliamentary candidate in the 1992 election. We hired them for a few weeks and they were great big things. Technology has advanced so much that we now have a tremendous product that has created jobs and wealth in this country and this remarkable windfall for the Chancellor.
I commend the Government for the way in which they managed the auction and succeeded in getting such a large sum. It would be a terrible waste to use that for redeeming debt when there is no pressure on Government borrowing and we are well within the Maastricht criteria for debt. Pension funds and the private sector are crying out for more Government borrowing because they need more Government gilts, of which there is a desperate shortage. Using the money to pay off debt would be a bit like the servant in the parable of the talents who buried the money that his master had given him rather than investing it for real returns in the future.
My plea to the Government is to fund science infrastructure. I know that our report said that the problem was business development, not science infrastructure, but that still has to be maintained and improved. Putting money into infrastructure will assist business and that is the kind of advice given in other countries.
286WH
The Government take seriously their role in fostering innovation and wealth creation; I hope that they will look again at the report and at some of the suggestions on how to use the massive windfall to ensure that the country prospers in the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Following the reference to the parable of the talents, we now turn to the talents of a civil engineer. I call Mr. David Chidgey.
4.16 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I am not a member of the Committee, and I congratulate its members on an excellent report. You have already alluded to the array of talent on that Committee, Mr. Winterton; no fewer than six PhDs served on the Committee. The more modest engineers among their number have not revealed themselves, but I believe that the Committee includes at least three chartered engineers. It is the strongest and longest array of talent in the scientific and engineering field ever assembled in a Committee and, as one might expect, they produced a thorough, exciting, but depressing, report.
I speak as an engineer, but that is not the main thrust of my contribution. I have been through the fire; I know what it is like to get innovation going and to try to recruit talented people to fulfil the requirements of an organisation in meeting customers' needs and working at the cutting edge to survive in the harsh, real world. I know the frustration felt when competitors in other countries have much more support, because those countries recognise how important a company's success is to the economy and to the well being of their fellow citizens. That is why I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a small contribution to this debate.
I shall pick out three recommendations from three and a half pages of recommendations and conclusions. I cannot remember a Select Committee report with so much to say on the subject, all of which is extremely worthy and relevant. I shall refer to recommendations (d), (x) and (ii) in the conclusion and say a few words about them.
First, recommendation (d) in paragraph 17 is about the fall in expenditure on research and development. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) rightly referred to the importance of paragraphs 16 and 35, which say it all about the dire straits in which our manufacturing industry finds itself. The reasons are to a large extent dependent on the decline in investment in research and development.
It is worth putting on record the sorry tale of that decline as a percentage of our gross domestic product. In 1988, Germany, the United States and Japan spent about 2.7 per cent. of their GDP on research and development. Even in 1988, we were trailing with investment at 2.1 per cent. of GDP. Less than 10 years later, in 1997, investment in Germany, America and Japan had fallen—perhaps they are more efficient—to between 2.4 per cent. and 2.7 per cent. of GDP. In this country, which had been falling behind its main competitors since the 1970s, as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, the sorry tale continued. By 1997, we were investing 1.8 per cent. of GDP, instead of 2.1 per cent. I stress those figures because they reveal a sorry tale of lack of action by the engines of our economy—state, public and private—and we need some action.

287WH
I accept that the Government have recognised the problem and are making efforts to tackle it, as other hon. Members have said. However, complacency is the disease at the heart of this problem. As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, it is not enough to quote only one year's figures. We have been facing this problem since the early post-war years. For some years after the second world war, repairing the damage that global conflict had done to our country and others kept our economy afloat. As soon as that was done and we had to compete in the real world for projects and exports, our investment in research and development started to slow down when it should have been speeding up.
I recognise that the Government are aware of the problem and have made some effort to tackle it, but it is not enough to assume that one year's figures represent a new golden dawn. I suggest that we are merely treading water—if we are lucky. I want the Government to understand just how deep the problem is and how much needs to be done to make Britain more competitive and innovative so that we can survive as a major player and benefit our communities and citizens in the years ahead.
Therefore, I turn to paragraph (x) of the conclusions. Again, it is worth reflecting on the points raised by Committee members. In particular, they noted that
Government policy should be focused upon…a strong public sector research and education base, at all levels, to provide industry with leading-edge research and the highly trained staff "which is the life-blood of technology-based industry".
They go on to say that the
Government must provide an economic and fiscal environment that supports those who innovate.
I am old enough and ugly enough and was in industry enough years to remember when Monty Finniston produced his report in the 1970s. He had previously been the chief executive of the steel industry. I was much younger then and full of ambition to succeed in my industry, but that is another story. However, I well remember that the Finniston report promised a new golden age for the innovators—engineers, technicians and, in particular, chartered engineers. Whatever happened to the Finniston report? I believe—I can say this in the House, if not outside—that the chief executive of GEC was so worried about having to pay his 20,000 chartered engineers a wage that would keep them attracted to their industry and which would attract the best brains to it, that he somehow managed to persuade the powers that be that Mr. Finniston's report should be discarded. Perhaps that is one reason why we find it so difficult to attract high-quality people from pure science into applied science. The rewards in applied science are still nothing like comparable with those in pure science or with those that people can receive in other countries if they happen to be sufficiently articulate in different languages. It is clear that we must still establish an atmosphere, ambience and environment in which being an engineer is a success in itself and a successful career path.
I recently had the interesting experience of being at a meeting with an eminent person in the engineering world who proudly said that engineers were successful, because they sat on the board of every company in the
288WH
top 100 blue chip companies. I asked him, "Well, what as?" That is my point: they were all there in a management capacity; not one was there as an engineer in his own right. That perfectly demonstrates the fact that people still see engineering as a platform from which to launch a more attractive, better paid and perhaps more respected career.
One hon. Member—I am not sure whom—referred to investment in industry and blamed the City for not investing in our industry and innovation. That may be true; perhaps we could expect more from the City. However, we must understand that it has never invested in industry. A short trip through history will show us that the City was investing in commerce and trade when it was established and eminent on the world stage back in the 17th century. It was funding ships to go off to the east and west to bring back produce that we could trade for profit. The City had nothing to do with investing in industry—it never even noticed the industrial revolution. The organisation was set up to invest in trade and commerce, which has always been its role.
If we want the City to be something else, that is fine. Perhaps the Government and Parliament have a role there. However, let us understand and accept the City for what it is. We must not use the fact that it is not more than that as a convenient excuse for the failure by the broader institutions of this country to recognise the need to invest in innovation and research.
Paragraph (ii) of the Select Committee's recommendations says:
The Government must recognise the need to increase the quality and levels of competence of science, engineering and technology graduates.
The Committee notes that the number of personnel employed in research and development fell by 23 per cent. between 1986 and 1996. It also notes that the number of technicians, laboratory assistants and draughtsmen has fallen by even more—30 per cent. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said that poor marketing was part of our problem. However, he also made a point about this country's lack of recognition for the dignity of applied knowledge. The two go hand in hand.
The contribution about the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was interesting. It has always recognised that applied science and pure science are equally important. The role of the scientific professions must be to contribute to the creation of wealth and the economy of a country for the benefit of its citizens as a whole. That is what we do. This is not about some esoteric exercise, but about improving people's lives. If we fail to realise that applied sciences have a vital role and are as important as our pure sciences, we will never achieve that aim. We have lost sight of that in recent decades.
The fall in the number of trained and qualified people working in research and development and in innovation at the cutting edge of industry is perhaps the most serious problem that we face. We cannot solve it simply by adding 10 per cent. to the average wage of a technician, engineer or scientist, or by increasing particular universities' budgets for research and development. The problem goes far deeper than that.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity late last year to attend a conference in Washington, where research fellows from the Hudson institute presented a paper on

289WH
research into employment potential in this century. The paper, entitled "20:20 Vision", clearly demonstrated the endemic problem in the industrialised western world of not producing sufficient numerate and literate people to drive our economies at the levels expected by our citizens to maintain our current rate of progress. If we do not revise the way in which we fund and produce not just educated, but trained and qualified people, with sufficient skills to drive our cutting-edge technology in our high-tech, high-skilled, knowledge-based economies, our economies will fail. As I said, it is not a question of a little more here and there: we need a fundamental review of how best to invest in people to acquire the skills that our economies need.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) mentioned the pressures experienced in America in trying to recruit people on the green card system. In Germany—not just in Russia—they are issuing tens of thousands of visas to IT-literate nationals from the Indian sub-continent, which was unheard of 10 years ago in that part of Europe. That shows how serious the problem is. My worry is that if we start to suck in the skills and knowledge of developing countries for the benefit of our own economies, what does it do to them—to the rest of the world, falling off the edge of technological development? In this country, we should recognise the problem and take the lead in producing people with the requisite numeracy, literacy and IT skills to drive our economies.
I congratulate the Government on encouraging local schools to bid to become centres of excellence in various areas. That is exciting as well as encouraging. It is a means of trying to make young people want to study mathematics and science. The Wyvern community school in my constituency of Eastleigh has done just that and won a competition to become a centre of technological excellence. The local aerospace industry—well represented in Hampshire, which is so defence-dependent—is coming in to provide matching funding. That is good, but it is not enough. It is exciting and enthusiastic, but does not deal with the underlying problem of producing people with the requisite talents and enthusing and encouraging them to stay in industry to produce the economic benefits that our citizens expect.
I am glad that the Government seem to be recognising the problem, but I am worried that they might become complacent. I finish by stressing that time is running out.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Richard Page.
4.32 pm
Mr. Richard Page: We have all attended debates in the Chamber, at which hon. Members stand up and say how delighted they are to take part. On this occasion, those sentiments are genuine. All too often, a Select Committee labours and slaves over a report, which then gathers dust on some forgotten shelf. That is not true today, and I am absolutely delighted that we are debating the report.
I am wounded, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you introduce so many doctors, engineers and other experts, but just read out my name.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. From the Chair, may I apologise to the hon. Gentleman? I had intended to
290WH
introduce him as a business man, so I hope that that will help and suffice. I am aware, of course, of his immense interest in science and research, as well as in business.
Mr. Page: I am now only slightly wounded. My initial training was as a mechanical engineer, so I know a little about the subject. I did my training in the real world rather than in the ivory towers of academia, but I leave that to one side. I have had a long-standing interest in the fortunes of engineering, which dates back to long before I came to the House, and I maintained that interest as a Back Bencher. I continued with it for the short time that I spent as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, before I was given the opportunity to spend a little more time with my family. I still maintain that interest in my more recent role. I am delighted that we have the chance to debate the subject today. My comments will therefore be made with conviction rather than as a result of dogma, although several hon. Members will doubtless feel that my comments are indivisible between the two.
The Science and Technology Committee report makes about 39 conclusions. The Committee will be delighted to know that I intend to speak about only three or four of them. We all understand the long-term factors that are at work in determining the economic record and future prospects of engineering and manufacturing companies. The Government have little direct control in the matter. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey); those factors run through our education system and the training of engineers, information technology specialists and specialists in the many physical sciences—and those who are often forgotten: the laboratory assistants, draughtsmen and technicians who play a vital supporting role. Also important is the funding of the nation's research and design and development, a stage through which all products must go before they can be marketed, and business men's requirements to make the products available and saleable.
One reason why the United Kingdom is less successful in supporting innovation in engineering, manufacturing and physical sciences is that, as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) said, the dignity of applied knowledge is more important in countries such as Germany, Japan and the United States. They do not have that hang-up and seem to avoid our apparent preference for pure science and the humanities in the education system.
I was profoundly depressed to read in the report that it is less acceptable in the UK to follow a career in emerging technology-based companies or start-ups, and that only 7 per cent. of UK graduates, compared with 68 per cent. in the United States, consider starting their own business. That adverse culture, which is against engineering and manufacturing, still exists deep within the education system. That is why the report, although valuable, is fundamentally depressing. I am reminded of the apocryphal story of the schoolteacher who took her charges to a factory but who, on the bus back to school, told them, "That is where you will end up if you do not pass your exams." The report seems almost to underline that attitude to engineering industry.
That attitude must be changed. The Government's responsibility is not only to secure the training of the work force in high-quality skills, as the Royal Academy

291WH
of Engineering has pointed out; they must also promote a change in entrenched attitudes. How else can we secure the supply of those technically educated and trained people whose job will be to drive innovation forward in companies and higher education? It is possible to do that.
The Engineering Employers Federation report on engineering general national vocational qualifications published last month showed that young people between the ages of 14 and 16 can be attracted to engineering. Almost half of those taking engineering GNVQs were considering engineering as a career. I am delighted that the girls were particularly interested in product design and development, two areas in which industrial companies have suffered over the years. Two thirds of participants said that they would be prepared to recommend it to their siblings as a career path. I shall not pretend that there is not more work to be done on that and other schemes, because parents and quite a few teachers have still to be persuaded of its full benefits. Some schools surveyed by the Engineering Employers Federation clearly perform better than others and a high proportion of those students—about half—who stay on in education after 16 go on to take A-levels rather than completing the full engineering GNVQ. The important point is that the attitude of those who have taken it has changed and they were more positive about engineering than they had been before.
As I mentioned earlier, the report contains about 39 recommendations and conclusions. However, one point that was not fully considered, but which has been mentioned in the debate, is the fundamental difference between a marketplace requirement that pulls on focused research and general research that pushes through to the marketplace. One has an assured client, a home to go to and someone to pay for it, whereas the other has a more problematic future. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) is not in the Chamber because he talked about missing the opportunity to invent Dynotape. We all know that the microwave oven took a few years to follow on from the original discovery of microwaves.
In Japan, there are small groups of people—I believe that one group is called "the ghosts"—who sit down and try to imagine what people would like. When they have worked out what they think people want, they go into a certain area. That drives innovation. I believe that the Sony Walkman was the result of such consideration. That is one of my three pet concerns: the Sony Walkman, jogging and mobile phones. The Sony Walkman will be responsible for more deafness among youngsters than ever before; jogging will lead to people requiring more hip replacements; and the mobile phone is an unknown concern for the future. We have a report on mobile phones before us today, and I believe that legislation could provide an innovative push in that area. Only yesterday, Professor Ted Litovitz, from the Catholic University of America, was in the House. Using a research team, he discovered that the electromagnetic field generated by mobile phones induces biological changes in cells. He was unsure whether it is dangerous but it certainly produced dramatic changes in chick embryos. He discovered that if one could introduce into the phone a small random
292WH
field, the biochemical response would be removed. In such a case, legislation could be introduced, which would drive the industry.
I want to mention two or three issues raised in the report and to comment and support the remarks made on technology clusters. That is the only way in which we can achieve the various critical masses that are needed to drive forward innovation. Several hon. Members have spoken about their away-day to Boston. About a year ago, I had an away-day to Boston, and I was singularly impressed with the way in which people there encourage innovation. They acknowledged—something that we do not do here—that if someone has an ability in a particular aspect of biotechnology or engineering, that person is unlikely to be an expert on property, running a company, finance and all tax matters. But that is what we require of people when they start a business. People who come up with ideas have to run around, get a lease or buy a property, raise finance and employ people. Young people in particular do not have the expertise.
In Boston, the city elders, including those on the city council and from academia and business, clubbed together and bought three or four research laboratories which were situated back to back. A manager was put in charge. A university professor who spotted someone with a good research idea would say, "Come with us and start your own business." A business manager and someone to run the centre were employed for a percentage of the shares, which was also the basis for raising finance. The young lad or girl could get their research idea up and running quickly without experiencing the learning curve of how to run a business. They were free to get on with developing their research. The record for taking someone from the university to a laboratory was 48 hours. The city elders have not had failure. Indeed, they have had considerable success, with every company spilling on to the marketplace and creating thousands of jobs. The report found a great deal of empirical evidence to support the idea that clusters are effective in fostering innovation, but there is a lack of knowledge on how clusters function.
I know that the Government have established a ministerial group on the subject. I hope that the Minister will expand on its thinking. The issue was raised during the synchrotron debate. By siting the synchrotron in Oxfordshire, Lord Sainsbury gave £50 million for the science base in the north-west. What was the reason for that? Was it a political consolation prize or was there a specific and understood motive? Do the Government intend to determine the location of scientific clusters from the centre? Are they looking for where organic growth in certain disciplines occurs? Will their decisions and policies relate to those clusters, however small? If the Government are to establish scientific clusters, they must have an overall strategy. It is not sufficient to toss a few pounds here, there and everywhere as compensation.
The Committee envisaged a second role for the Govt. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) mentioned the mere £22 billion that is being put into the engineering pot. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) came up with the auction idea when he was a Minister. I think that he regrets that he was unable to get a slice of the action on that brilliant and highly successful arrangement. The Committee thought that the Government should

293WH
produce an economic and fiscal environment to support those who innovate. The hon. Member for Selly Oak explained her method to fund that, but the Government are failing to fulfil that role. A low-tax economy rewards entrepreneurs and investors who take risks and achieve success. I do not expect universal agreement about this in the Chamber, but we must bear in mind that the Government have increased taxation on companies by a substantial amount. We are given a figure of £30 billion, but I do not know how accurate that is. Business must cope with an extra £10 billion in new regulatory costs. I am going to make only one point—it is a completely different point of view. The Committee recommends giving research and development tax credits to large companies as well as small. I can see some merit in that, but an alternative solution to the lack of investment is to create a low-regulation, low-tax economy, which leaves companies free to invest.
The report does not say how the Government will address the challenges in the future. The relative decline in our spending on research has been mentioned by hon. Members. Hon. Members have mentioned the contraction in the numbers and, perhaps more importantly, in the quality of those conducting programmes of research and innovation. The disparity between the reward for careers in management compared to those in the City and other areas has also been mentioned. I know a group of young lads and one girl who studied engineering at Imperial college. They worked exceedingly hard and achieved good degrees. However, two years after attaining their degrees, only one is still working in engineering. The rest have been siphoned off into the City and other careers with much more profitable returns. One has gone to the United States and has caused immense jealousy among his former friends and colleagues because his new company has valued him at £40 million. For a lad of 28, that is not bad going. As others have said, there is disparity in salaries.
I hope that the Minister will comment on how she thinks we can try to change that culture, encourage people into engineering and the physical sciences, and encourage companies to give better rewards for those who take that route.
The Government's record since taking office has not been as satisfactory as some have claimed. The Department of Trade and Industry's own research and development scoreboard for 1998–99 shows that the overall increase in research and development, specifically in engineering and telecommunications, can be accounted for by spending by large companies. We want to see those companies grow. Most companies were and are spending less than the average. The big international companies among the 561 on the 1999 list increased their research and development spending by 12 per cent. That is double the rate of the domestic companies, which are also starting from a lower base.
In engineering, the commitment to fund research and development was lower than that of companies in other industrial sectors. Indeed, when compared with the world average figure, I would go further than the Select Committee's description of "particularly disappointing" and say that in engineering, R and D is largely D. We in this country cannot sit and watch the trend continue.
294WH
As I said at the start, I wanted to touch on only three or four points. The report is immensely valuable and the Committee is to be congratulated. I hope that, whatever else it might do, this report will help to drive forward innovation in our engineering and physical science base.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister, it is appropriate to tell hon. Members that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology has had to leave in order to Chair the Finance Bill Standing Committee. That is the why he could not stay until the end of the debate.
4.54 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I feel rather inadequate in responding to this debate as a mere arts graduate who does not even have a PhD. I must apologise to hon. Members for that omission. I hope that I shall at least be able to borrow some reflected glory, as I am the constituency Member of Parliament for the new national space science centre, which will build on the absolutely outstanding work of the University of Leicester's space science department and spread that into business and education.
The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) explained that he would not be able to stay in Westminster Hall to hear the winding-up speeches and courteously informed me of that before the debate. I pay tribute to him for his work as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee and for the experience that he has brought to that post as a scientist. I should like also to compliment all members of the Committee on their outstanding, long and hard work in producing an excellent report.
The debate is timely, as this week sees Celebration of Innovation 2000, a week-long series of national and regional events around the United Kingdom. The event celebrates and showcases innovation in all its different forms, and brings together more than 25,000 innovators, entrepreneurs, academics, scientists and engineers. It builds on what used to be only a single event on a single day. This debate is highly appropriate, taking place in the same week as an excellent series of events organised by the Department of Trade and Industry innovation unit.
In his excellent opening speech, the hon. Member for Rayleigh made the important point that a stable economic base must underpin science, research, development and the whole chain of innovation. It is the absence of economic stability and-to use a novel phrase-the depressing cycle of boom and bust that has inhibited investment in Britain. That instability is one of the main reasons for the decline in civil research and development expenditure, to which the hon. Member for Rayleigh and other hon. Members have rightly referred and to which the Committee devotes much attention in its report.
Of course, our research and development expenditure is nowhere near as high as that of a number of our international competitor countries. As several hon. Members have noted, our current gross expenditure on research and development is merely the fifth highest among countries in the Group of Seven. As I think the hon. Member for Rayleigh acknowledged, the most recent figures, which have been released since the

295WH
publication of the report, indicate an arrest in that decline. Between 1997 and 1998, total research and development expenditure increased in real terms by 2 per cent. to some £15.5 billion. In 1998, total expenditure on research and development in the United Kingdom increased as a percentage of gross domestic product for the first time since 1993, to £10.2 billion.
As hon. Members have acknowledged, the United Kingdom's pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors are world leaders in their field and continue to build on the large-scale investments that they have made in research and development. Civil expenditure on business enterprise research and development increased in real terms in 1998.
Our pointing out those facts, as we did in our response to the Select Committee's report, does not mean that we are complacent or that we think that one swallow will make a summer. However, the facts suggest that we might have bottomed out and that we might be turning a corner. Our intention in government is to do what is necessary to ensure that those encouraging figures are not simply a blip in a long story of continuing decline, but represent a turning point in research and development investment. That is one of the crucial issues that we are considering in the spending review 2000, especially through the cross-cutting review on science and innovation, to which we will return in the science White Paper.
Much of the increase in R and D is funded from abroad. That demonstrates the growing confidence of foreign-owned firms in our science and engineering base. The base is one of the many elements that attract them to this country and continue to make the UK the No. 1 destination, by a considerable margin, for direct foreign investment in the European Union.
There are also exciting examples to be drawn from UK business. I had the opportunity on Tuesday morning of spending several hours at BT's technology park—Adastral park—of which I am sure many hon. Members are aware. Engineers, physical scientists and scientists and innovators from many other disciplines are coming together, not simply to create new leading-edge scientific applications but, crucially, to start exploiting BT's research over many decades. The company has discovered that research has resulted in a stockpile—a gold mine—of patents that have never been commercially exploited. It invented and patented wonderful processes, and put them away because they were not directly relevant to the business. It was extremely encouraging to see at Adastral park a marriage of scientific research and entrepreneurship. That is leading to a spin-off of companies from the old patents, which are being nurtured at BT's new incubator at the park.
We must ensure that the increase in R and D expenditure that has begun is continued and built on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) rightly notes, as does the Committee's report, that innovation is not a one-off event but a chain of activities. As the Government, we must help—and we are doing so—to strengthen every link in that chain of innovation. Our commitment to the first link in the chain is demonstrated by the increase in
296WH
spending on the science and engineering base of £1 billion over the three years from 1999–2000 to 2001–02, as my hon. Friend acknowledged.
We have already achieved 47 of the 75 commitments that we made in the competitiveness White Paper. Achievements include not only the increase in the science budget, but the creation of the joint infrastructure fund. That is part of an exciting new partnership between the Wellcome Trust and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which is beginning to reverse the chronic and long-standing under-investment in research infrastructure. We were able to announce last month support worth almost £130 million for 27 projects at 21 universities across the country. That brought the total spend to date to £600 million.
We introduced the R and D tax credit for small and medium-sized enterprises in this year's Budget. I note the Committee's view that it should be extended to larger companies, which I have heard echoed by industrialists in such companies. The Government will of course consider the issue. As hon. Members will surely realise, the difficulty is that one would run the risk of substantial deadweight costs if one were to extend the credit to very large companies. Tax allowances would be given for R and D investment that would have occurred anyway. There is a real issue for small companies that are part of larger conglomerates, particularly when the rest of the group is based overseas.
For that reason, small United Kingdom companies may find themselves excluded from the benefits of the tax credit and other programmes. We certainly need to consider that. The Department has also increased the budget for helping businesses to use new technology and to encourage innovation. We have strengthened the links between universities and businesses, including the crucial promotion of business incubators in universities.
The programmes have shown some startling successes. Even though we must be realistic about the challenges that we face, it is important that we do not talk down the successes that are already being achieved. For instance—I readily acknowledge that this was under the previous Government—Bookham Technology Ltd. obtained a smart grant from the DTI to help it to exploit an invention in optical networks. The founder and president of that company, Dr. Andrew Rickman, said that Bookham Technology could not have started without it. It started as a one-man company, consisting of Andrew Rickman, but is now a business with a market capitalisation of nearly £4 billion. I wonder whether a case might be made for taking just a tiny, tiny slice of equity in companies that are awarded such grants—although that, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
The hon. Member for Rayleigh—other hon. Members echoed the point—suggested that we need to simplify and streamline the large number of programmes that support links between the science base and industry. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. We know that it is often difficult for the entrepreneur or the person running a small business to know where to go for help, or where to find the innovative science or academic expert needed to transform the business. The recently created small business service has a remit to consider how to simplify

297WH
and streamline general Government support for small businesses. The issue of making our support for innovation even more effective, particularly as it is used by small businesses, will be dealt with in the science White Paper.
We have done and are doing more, particularly in electronic commerce and in support for small businesses. We have been working—I believe successfully—with small businesses to accelerate the rapid take-up of new information and communication technologies. We are helping to develop the UK venture capital industry; indeed, several hon. Members referred to the importance of business angels and the venture capital sector in supporting entrepreneurship. Through public investment in the enterprise fund, we are creating not only the high technology venture capital fund, but regional venture capital funds, which will help to close the equity gap faced by too many of our businesses.
We have been reviewing and reforming the laws on insolvency and bankruptcy, to reassess our approach to risk, and to ensure that honest, but perhaps unfortunate, entrepreneurs are not deterred from going back into business. The hon. Member for Rayleigh made the important point that, in reforming the insolvency laws to promote honest entrepreneurship and risk taking, we must not damage the interests of creditors, who may themselves be entrepreneurs and small businesses. He is absolutely right. We are ensuring that, in our arrangements to distinguish between honest bankrupts—the vast majority—and the minority of bankrupts who have indulged in fraudulent or dishonest practices, we not only protect creditors, but strengthen arrangements for them and implement more effective schemes for voluntary repayment. The small business service is already making strides towards delivering our goal of providing world-class business support services to small businesses all around the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) spoke with a wealth of knowledge about science and innovation in the north-east, much of it gained from his experience before he entered the House. One phrase that I thought was hugely significant was his reference to what some people call "the old economy". The two phrases "the new economy" and "the old economy" have created a misleading impression of what is going on as we move into the knowledge-driven economy of the future. They all too often imply that the sectors of the old economy, particularly those of traditional manufacturing, are inevitably destined for decline and death. That is wrong and shows a complete misunderstanding of the technological revolution that is taking place.
The new technologies, including information and communication technology, are transforming production processes and products in every sector, including the most long-established manufacturing sectors. Part of our mission is to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses in every part of the economy, but particularly in the manufacturing sector, exploit the new technologies to the full so that we have a high-technology manufacturing base which will help to raise standards of living and quality of life, and to generate new and better jobs. He referred also to the importance of venture capital funding and I entirely agree on the need to ensure that equity funding is available right around the country, and not simply in the south-east.
298WH
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) rightly referred to the wonderful science "car boot sales" that have been initiated by the Royal Society of Chemistry. They are clearly an innovative way of spreading the spirit of innovation into small companies. We know from evaluation that they have been extremely successful in that aim. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to balance our support for pure research in the universities with our support for knowledge transfer and the exploitation of that research in the marketplace.
Our universities should be both stimulators and facilitators of knowledge transfer to business and to society more broadly. We want universities to adopt a diversity of missions so that they excel in their chosen areas of strength, whether pure research or knowledge transfer. We are trying to encourage that application of science and knowledge through new initiatives such as university challenge, the science enterprise challenge and the higher education reach-out into business and the community fund, all of which the Committee welcomed.
We have also increased funding for some long-established programmes, including the teaching company scheme programme, and are building on that in the new Faraday partnerships. My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr was a little too dismissive of the investment that we are making in the Faraday partnerships. Four pilot centres are up and running. We have just issued the call for the next four, but we will not stop there. The intention is to roll out new Faraday partnership centres at a rate of four a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) rightly referred to the importance of people. Innovation is fundamentally about people at every point in the value chain. She and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) stressed the need to attract young men and women into science and engineering at university level and then into careers in those fields. Overall, the number of people graduating with science, engineering and technology qualifications has increased. More people than ever before are graduating in those disciplines. However, although the absolute number is increasing, those people represent a declining proportion of the growing number of students.
There are some mismatches between supply and demand. Employers are reporting shortages at graduate and postgraduate level in specialised forms of chemistry and electronic engineering, for example. Business needs graduates with broader business expertise as well as excellent scientific and engineering skills. That is one reason why we have encouraged universities and given them real financial incentives to include business skills and entrepreneurial education in the curriculum for science and engineering undergraduates.
There is a widespread shortage of people with intermediate qualifications, particularly in engineering and information technology. We have responded by creating the new foundation degrees, which broaden the higher education portfolio. They will provide specialist technical knowledge, employability skills and the broad understanding needed in the new economy. That will help to increase our national competitiveness by tackling the skills deficit at the intermediate level.

299WH
We are acting on the important issue of building high-technology science-based industrial clusters, which my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) raised. As we say in our response to the Committee's report, the Government have a clear role in providing the environment in which new and existing clusters can develop and grow. Lord Sainsbury is developing that work through the clusters policy steering group. It will make recommendations for new policy initiatives to the Cabinet, which held an extremely important seminar on clusters with Professor Michael Porter from Harvard university some months ago, because they are a crucial ingredient in a modern industrial policy. The group has a broad membership and is engaging in widespread consultation. It will also draw on a full mapping study of the clusters that exist or are emerging.
Regional development agencies will be the key delivery mechanism of progress. Every RDA's economic strategy is to begin to identify the clusters on which to build, and which they need to strengthen by attracting new inward investment. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor allocated £50 million of additional funding to help RDAs to promote clusters and business incubation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak made an important point about environmental technologies and ensuring that we secure competitive advantage for United Kingdom businesses in developing such technologies, the production processes and the products which will become increasingly important in tackling enormous problems such as climate change. We are already undertaking a considerable amount of work.
300WH
My hon. Friend referred to the motor manufacturing sector. Through the cleaner vehicles task force, we have worked with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the motor industry to pull through more rapid innovation in the development of less polluting and non-polluting vehicles that will help to meet the rapidly growing demand for better mobility. We have also introduced the climate change levy on a revenue-neutral base to give better environmental signals to business and encourage the innovation that she described.
I am all too conscious that I have not been able to respond to every point raised during this extremely interesting, informative and well informed debate. We are living at a time of fundamental discontinuity and witnessing an absolute revolution in technology and the economic system. Our country led the world into the first industrial revolution, and we are determined to ensure that it becomes one of the winners and leaders in the new knowledge-driven economy of the 21st century.
I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who helped to compile the Committee's excellent report. I assure them that we will draw on their recommendations when we finalise our science White Paper, and then move forward to deliver on its vision of the United Kingdom as a world-beater in the knowledge-driven economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has been a very good debate on a most important Select Committee report. Such debates are one purpose of sittings in Westminster Hall.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Five o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Business Co-ordination Unit
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to set up a unit to co-ordinate contacts between the business sector and Government Departments. [122225]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Following discussions with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have set up a new Business Co-ordination unit within my Department. It will work with the DTI and Treasury to co-ordinate contacts across other Government Departments with the business community.

  The Government have always been committed to maintaining good channels of communication between themselves and the business community, and this unit will make further contributions to that work.

  I have been asked to take on this role by the Prime Minister because of my role as cross-Government spokesperson and my experience of leading initiatives which cut across the whole of Whitehall. I will be working closely with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service (Sickness Rates)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the overall level of sickness absence in the Civil Service in 1998. [122148]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The report 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 1998' prepared for my Department by BMI Health Services Ltd. shows that when the same methodology as in previous years was applied the average level of sickness absence was 9.8 days per staff year. This compares with a figure of 10.1 days for 1997. Calculated on the basis of absence per person, the figure for the Civil Service was 8.4 days. The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the 1998 figures.

  In tandem with the preparation of that report, Departments and agencies have separately been undertaking audits of their monitoring systems as recommended in the July 1998 report 'Managing Attendance in the Public Sector'. In some cases these audits have revealed an element of under recording. The BMI report also contains figures reworked to reflect the audit findings, and these show that the average figure
  434W
  for sickness absence in 1998 was 10.3 days per staff year. These revised figures came too late and in insufficient detail for them to be taken into account in the report's data analysis.

  My Department is continuing to work with other Departments and agencies as they take forward their plans to reduce sickness absence. Overall the Civil Service has been targeted to reduce sickness absence by 20 per cent. for 2001 and 30 per cent. for 2003 against the 1998 baseline.

  I have placed copies of the BMI report in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for additional capital expenditure in relation to the handling of asylum claimants in the vicinity of Gatwick Airport. [121509]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service at Gatwick is at present looking at accommodation in the Horley/Crawley area in order to improve its capability in handling asylum and other casework. Dealing with asylum claims is one of the Immigration Service's top priorities. A central unit in the Gatwick area is being considered, but as yet no firm decisions have been made.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) transgenic pigs and (b) monkeys killed in the last four years died at Huntingdon Life Sciences; and if he will make a statement. [121506]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents me from disclosing detailed information of this nature about an individual establishment licensed under the Act. We are examining Section 24 in the context of Freedom of Information changes.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals broken down by species were allowed into the United Kingdom for use in experiments for each year from 1990 to date; and if he will make a statement. [121507]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office does not record centrally the number of animals used in scientific procedures broken down according to their source.

  Since 1995, Table 2 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, published annually in separate volumes for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has reported the number of scientific procedures carried out using species listed in Schedule 2 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 analysed according to the source of the animals used. Similar statistics were not collected and published before 1995.

  The numbers of scientific procedures carried out in Great Britain and Northern Ireland using Schedule 2 species acquired direct from sources outside the United Kingdom in each year from 1995 to 1998 were as follows.
  435W

  Species of animal

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Mouse

  8,624

  11,285

  13,361

  15,943

  Rat

  9,348

  10,849

  3,499

  2,740

  Guinea Pig

  16

  0

  0

  793

  Hamster

  1,744

  141

  218

  1,596

  Rabbit

  4

  42

  0

  30

  Cat

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dog

  941

  977

  100

  80

  Primate

  1,156

  741

  361

  395

  Quail (Cotumix cotumix)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  21,833

  24,035

  17,539

  21,577

  Statistics for 1999 are currently being collected and are due to be published in July 2000.

  Police and Fire Authority Pensions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of pension payments on police and fire authorities' budgets in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [121479]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Central Local Partnership, the Home Office has been working closely with representatives of fire and police authorities to assess resource demands for the next three years. Projections by the services concerned were made by the Local Government Association's Fire Service Expenditure Forecasting Group and the Association of Police Authorities/Association of Chief Police Officers in its report "Policing the Future - Report of the Police Service Expenditure Forecasting Group". Pensions pressures are being taken into account in consideration of Spending Review 2000.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the police in post on an average day in 1999 were available for duty on that day. [121675]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were given a community service orders in each of the last five years; how many of such orders were breached in each year; and how many people who breached those orders were benefit claimants. [121525]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information for the years 1988 to 1998 on the number of persons given a community service order and the number who breach such orders is published in Table 7.26 of the command paper "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1998". A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Data on the number of persons breaching an order who are benefit claimants are not collected centrally.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 886, on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, on what basis he calculated that the removal of the right to elect trial by jury in either-way cases will produce savings of more than £120 million per year. [121294]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 377W.

  Lowdham Grange Prison
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons following the inspection of HMP Lowdham Grange. [121489]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chief Inspector published his report on 27 April.

  Murder and Rape Trials
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average waiting period in the last 12 months for which figures are available between charge and commencement of trial in cases of(a) murder and (b) rape; and what were the equivalent figures at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [121290]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  Overall average waiting times from charge to start of trail for offences dealt with at the Crown Court are not available. Average waiting times are available separately for the period from charge to committal from magistrates courts, and for the period from committal to the Crown Court to start of trial. However the available data for both the magistrates courts and the Crown Court cannot identify murder and rape cases separately from broader offence groupings.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crop Trials
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if yield data will be published from the GM crop trials designed to monitor environmental impact. [120716]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: There are no plans to publish yield data as part of the farm scale evaluations of GM crops.

  Freight
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to transfer freight from roads to rail. [120845]
  437W
  Mr. Hill
  Our policy is to help to establish an integrated, sustainable freight distribution system, both to support economic growth and to bring social and environmental benefits. The Strategic Rail Authority, already operating in shadow form, will have a duty to promote rail freight. In the three years beginning April 1997 we have provided £81 million in grants to move freight from road to rail or inland waterways. We have issued guidance to local authorities to facilitate more use of rail for freight, and our forthcoming 10 year Transport Plan will set out the Government's longer term strategy.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 5W, how many journeys on the Royal Train have involved the use of the sleeping accommodation. [121269]

  Mr. Hill
  All the Royal Train journeys during the year ended 31 March 2000 involved the use of sleeping accommodation.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was paid to Wisconsin Central to service and operate the Royal Train in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [121257]

  Mr. Hill
  No money was paid to Wisconsin Central. However, as set out in the published Annual Report on the Grant-in-aid for Royal Travel by air and rail covering the financial year ended 31 March 1999, £779,000 was paid to English Welsh & Scottish Railway, which is the operator of the Royal Train and a UK subsidiary of Wisconsin Central.

  Tees Barrage
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what payments have been(a) made and (b) agreed as part of a management licence to British Waterways for operating the Tees Barrage. [121480]

  Ms Armstrong
  Under the terms of a Management Agreement signed on 31 March 2000 between British Waterways and the Commission for the New Towns, BW assumed operational responsibility for managing the Tees Barrage, maintaining related facilities and the obligations attached thereto, as if it were the owner. An endowment of £17,696,616 was paid to BW. It is intended that the freehold of the property will be conveyed to BW shortly, together with a formal transfer of the powers and functions in the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Act 1990. It is not expected that any further endowment will be paid.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  15. Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the national minimum wage. [120519]
  438W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor the introduction of the national minimum wage and to report on their findings. We published their report on 15 February along with our response to it.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that all those entitled to the national minimum wage receive it. [120523]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Inland Revenue is responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage. If any worker believes they are not being paid what they are entitled to under the law they simply have to phone the minimum wage helpline on 0845 6000 678 to make a complaint about underpayment. All complaints, including third party tip-offs, are followed up.

  The Government recognise that it is vital for workers to be aware of their entitlements under the law. Around £5 million was spent on advertising the minimum wage at the time of its introduction last year. A smaller campaign in the autumn targeted certain ethnic groups where awareness was still relatively low. There will be further paid publicity spanning the periods when the youth rate and main rate are increased on 1 June and 1 October respectively.

  The Government are working with relevant worker and employer organisations to help improve awareness of the minimum wage. As recommended by the Low Pay Commission, we will update our general guidance and provide specific information for certain groups. The Government are asking the Commission to continue to monitor the national minimum wage and to produce a further report on its introduction by July 2001.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on energy prices in the South-West of his decision to lift the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. [120520]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have made no assessment specifically on the South-West, but Government energy policy should lead to a continuing downward pressure in energy prices.

  Post Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of rural and suburban sub-post offices. [120522]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are contributing £480 million toward the cost of equipping the whole national network of post offices with an automated on-line IT platform. This investment in the automation project is substantial and is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to the future of the Post Office network. Nearly 40,000 counter positions in over 18,000 offices will be equipped with the modern computer system. Automation will attract new customers and services to the Post Office, replacing traditional business progressively eroded by changing customer demands and habits, which, in turn, will contribute to strengthening the long-term viability of the network.
  439W
  In addition, the Performance and Innovation Unit is examining the longer term future of the network and is working across Government Departments to establish how best the Post Office network can be used and promoted.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Performance and Innovation Unit report into the Post Office network. [120524]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand that the Performance and Innovation Unit will report the results of its study of the Post Office counters network to the Prime Minister shortly.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the levels of subsidy that will be required to safeguard the future of post offices in small towns and villages and in rural areas. [120528]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is too early to assume that subsidy would be the right way forward. The Government's key target is a viable commercial future for the Post Office network. The Government are using the opportunity of the Post Office Bill to propose taking the necessary powers to keep open the option of financial assistance.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the scale and timing of the proposed subsidy to sub-post offices threatened with closure. [120537]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have no plans at present to subsidise the network of post offices, but are using the opportunity of the Post Office Bill to propose taking the necessary powers to provide financial assistance towards ensuring provision of postal and other services at post offices, should that prove necessary at some future stage.

  Personal Service Companies
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means he monitors whether the UK's international competitiveness is adversely affected by the working of IR35. [120525]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are committed to ensuring a fair tax system. It is clearly unfair that someone using a personal service company and carrying out the job of an employee has been able to enjoy a big tax and NICs advantage over other employees. Avoidance through service companies placed a burden on other tax and NIC payers and damaged the UK's competitiveness.

  The IR35 proposals enable the use of personal service companies to continue but without the previous unfair scope for avoiding payment of Tax and NICs.

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to assist manufacturing industry. [120526]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We are assisting manufacturing industry to be competitive by creating the right economic climate and by pursuing policies that help firms to innovate and grow.
  440W
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact on manufacturing industry of the strength of the pound. [120539]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This Government understand the difficulties many manufacturers, particularly those trading with Europe, are facing because of the value of the pound in relation to the euro. However we are determined to take a long-term view—attempts at short-term fixes would ultimately do more harm than good.

  The latest average of independent forecasts for the UK economy points to manufacturing output rising by 2.2 per cent. this year, in line with the top end of the Treasury's Budget forecast.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the current value of the pound on the competitiveness of UK manufacturing industry. [120541]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This Government understand the difficulties which many manufacturers, particularly those trading with Europe, face as a result of the weakness of the euro, but competitiveness depends on a wide range of factors.

  The platform for economic stability created by this Government, together with the structural measures to promote competition, to encourage enterprise and innovation, and to raise the skills base and investment, provides the best economic environment for improving industrial competitiveness in the UK.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy to assist the British shipbuilding industry. [120529]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department's strategy is to support and promote the UK shipbuilding industry, and in particular, to assist the industry to improve its competitiveness. In July 1998 my Department established the Shipbuilding Forum whose membership comprises representatives of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, trade unions, equipment suppliers and customers, both private and public sector. Also involved are the National Training Organisation for the marine sector and relevant Government Departments. The Forum's terms of reference are to consider the current situation of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry and how to improve its competitiveness so as to increase its share of the European market, leading to increased output, profitability and employment.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry. [120540]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government's policies are to establish the macroeconomic conditions within which the management of individual industries and companies can maximise their output, growth and employment prospects. The Government do not make forecasts for individual industries in the private sector.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with oil and gas companies regarding future investment in field development in the North Sea. [120530]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet oil and gas companies. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe chairs the industry/Government forum PILOT which is actively considering ways of encouraging investment in North Sea oil and gas development. In addition, in February, my Department announced an initiative to target areas where there has been no exploration or development for some time.

  Rover
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Longbridge plant. [120531]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Alchemy's cessation of negotiations with BMW provides a new opportunity for proposals to come forward which offer a viable future for Longbridge and which may provide more jobs than under the Alchemy proposals.

  This Government's efforts over the next few weeks will be directed towards achieving a successful outcome which will serve the interests of the workers at Longbridge and the wider community in the West Midlands.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made by the Rover Task Force. [120533]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  When I announced the creation of the Rover Task Force on the day following BMW's decision to break up the Rover Group, I asked it to look into the effect that would have on the Longbridge area of Birmingham and on the supplier chain and to make recommendations about what should be done to lessen the impact.

  The Task Force has 21 members drawn from and representing a wide range of organisations in the West Midlands and produced an interim report published on 26 April. I have asked it to produce a final report at the end of June 2000.

  In its interim report, the Task Force drew on over 1,000 questionnaires completed and returned to it by supplier chain companies and from the work done by its five sub-groups which have been created to assess the impact both on individuals and businesses. The Task Force has already provided telephone helplines for individuals and suppliers and a website. The report makes a number of additional recommendations about short and medium term actions that should be taken to regenerate the region and action is already being taken to support identified needs.

  At the outset of the Task Force's work I committed £129 million to assist the people, communities and businesses of the West Midlands affected by BMW's decision. I have already given approval for £12 million worth of support for the West Midlands supplier chain companies from the £129 million. This will help them to draw up fresh Business Plans, find fresh markets, obtain export advice and receive support for retooling and
  442W
  retraining. An additional commitment of £15.5 million, over and above the £129 million, has been made to support individuals. This money is providing help through a Rapid Response Unit at Longbridge offering fast-track access to benefits and training and is tackling re-skilling and re-training for workers from Rover and its supplier chain who will be made redundant or whose jobs will be affected.

  The Task Force has also been working with regional partners on:
  Bank support for business—ensuring a consistent and supportive approach to suppliers dependent on Rover; and help for businesses to deal with this serious shock to the market.
  Tracking of each individual who is made redundant so that progress can be monitored and additional support given if needed. The aim is to maximise the successful redeployment of people and skills.
  Creating a Task Force People's Guide on available help for those facing redundancy. This 60-page booklet has been printed and will be sent out shortly.
  Support for apprentices/graduate trainees to complete their training and to maximise the retention of skills in the region and in the UK.
  A study into development of the region for high-tech manufacture in the West Midlands, including A38 Corridor and Longbridge.
  West Midlands Regional Supply Office activities to enable it to find alternative local customers for some present suppliers to Rover across the manufacturing sector.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the numbers of jobs which would be lost in(a) Shrewsbury and (b) Shropshire if Rover were to close; and if he will make a statement. [121762]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is good news that BMW have come to an arrangement with the Phoenix Consortium to purchase Rover—Longbridge. Until more details are available it is too early to comment on the impact on jobs in the Shrewsbury and Shropshire areas.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in his review of the export credit guarantee scheme. [120532]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Review of ECGD's Mission and Status, which I announced last July, is proceeding satisfactorily. The public consultation exercise and a number of independent studies into certain aspects of ECGD's operations have provided valuable evidence. These inputs will enable Ministers to determine the right way forward for ECGD, and I expect to announce the outcome of the Mission Review to the House in the next month or so. I expect the Status element of the Review to be completed later in the year.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about the cost to business of regulations controlling business activity since 1997. [120534]

  Ms Hewitt
  Regulation is one of many issues I discuss as part of my regular contacts with business.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the EU and USA concerning the restructuring of the aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement. [120536]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My officials and I maintain regular contact with EU and American Governments involved in the restructuring of the aerospace industry. I attended a meeting of industry ministers from six European countries in Rome last October to discuss the prospects for continued progress on aerospace restructuring.

  It was a useful opportunity for me to meet colleagues from key European aerospace nations and to have the opportunity for direct dialogue with senior industrialists. Our discussions covered a wide range of issues relevant to the future success of the industry. My objective is that the UK should continue to play a leading role in international restructuring and maintain the global competitiveness of its aerospace sector.

  Equal Opportunities (Small Businesses)
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to ensure small businesses understand the regulations relating to equal opportunities. [120538]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service provides a wealth of information intended to ensure that small businesses understand the regulations relating to equal opportunities.

  The DTI is also working with DfEE, the three statutory equality commissions, and ACAS on the development of a pilot information and advice service for business to be launched in the Autumn, called Equality Direct, based on business needs. The service will provide authoritative, confidential and coherent information and advice on all aspects of equal opportunities.

  Council for Science and Technology
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role of the Council for Science and Technology. [120542]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Council for Science and Technology is the Prime Minister's top level advisory body on strategic issues concerning the Government's policies and framework for ensuring that science and technology meet the needs of the United Kingdom. The Council's terms of reference, along with information about its work and advisory reports are available on its website at www.cst.gov.uk.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's support for renewable energy technologies. [120518]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government announced in February their target for PES of 10 per cent. electricity from renewables. This is to stimulate the development of renewable energy so that it can provide a continuously growing contribution in the competitive market, as part of our climate change programme.
  444W
  We have a target of achieving 5 per cent. of UK electricity from renewables by 2003 and 10 per cent. by 2010. The cost of course must be acceptable to consumers.

  Coal Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 12 April 2000,Official Report, column 153W, on coal miners' compensation, if he will name hospitals that have not been prepared to release miners' medical records. [120352]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Following the issuing of guidance by the NHS Executive and the BMA to Hospital Trusts and GPs respectively, I am advised by Healthcall, the company contracted to obtain the medical records, that there are no hospitals that are not prepared to release medical records. However I am aware that it may take time for hospitals to retrieve records, which in some cases date back many years. My Department is monitoring the position very closely and I will have no hesitation in informing Members of any hospitals in their constituencies where we experience difficulties in the future.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the membership of the working group composed of representatives from the Government, Ofgem and the industry that is examining the issues that surround embedded generation; what is the work programme of the group and its timescale; if he will publish minutes of the group's meetings to date; and if he will make a statement. [120843]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The working group on Embedded Generation Network Issues was set up following the issue of the Department's consultation document 'Electricity Network Management Issues' (URN 99/1237). It is chaired by Dr. Brian Wharmby, technical director of Ofgem and comprises representatives of network operators, generators, suppliers and consumers, the Energy Savings Trust, DETR, DTI and Ofgem. It held its first meeting in March and proposes to complete its work by the end of the year 2000. The group has agreed that its membership, terms of reference and agreed meeting minutes should be published on the DTI website. The pages are available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/egwg/index.htm

  Industrial Grant Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) grants and (b) grant aid he has promised (i) the car industry and (ii) the coal industry since May 1997; from which budgets they will be drawn; what they are for; and for which he has EU approval. [120856]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The information is as follows:

  (i) details of projects are published in the Labour Market Trends.

  (ii) details were contained in my statement to the House on 17 April.

  Chief Scientific Adviser
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the procedure for recruiting the Government Chief Scientific Adviser following the retirement of Sir Robert May. [120431]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The post of Government Chief Scientific Adviser was advertised in the national press in March 2000. The competition for the post is being conducted according to the rules laid down by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to promote e-commerce; and if he will make a statement. [120507]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have put e-commerce at the heart of their vision for building a competitive, modern, knowledge-driven economy, and the DTI plays a leading role in realising this.

  In September 1999, the Prime Minister launched the report 'E-commerce@its.best.uk' which set out the Government's strategy to make the UK the best place in the world to trade electronically. This strategy is based on:
  Ensuring that we have the right regulatory environment and market framework to allow e-commerce to flourish in the UK.
  Preventing a digital divide by ensuring that we have the level of skills and access to enable businesses and individuals to make full use of the new technologies.
  Ensuring that Government act as an exemplar by getting their own services online.

  Specific actions taken by DTI as part of the strategy to promote e-commerce include:
  The 'Information Society Initiative', aimed at increasing the usage of e-commerce by small businesses.
  Measures to promote consumer confidence when trading online.
  The Electronic Communications Bill, which gives legal recognition to electronic signatures and encourages an industry-led system of self-regulation.
  Helping all communities get access to the new technologies through the 'IT For All' programme.

  Motor Industry
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Rover franchised dealers and (b) BMW franchised dealers there are in the United Kingdom; and how many people are employed in each. [121592]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 29 March 2000,Official Report, column 196.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion his Department has held with the retail motor industry representatives since the publication of the Competition Commission report into the sale of new cars. [121593]

  Mr. Byers
  Since the publication of the Competition Commission report on the supply of new cars, my Department has had discussions with representatives of a number of industry bodies, including the Retail 446W
  Motor Industry Federation and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and with representatives of a number of individual companies.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to(a) amend and (b) withdraw the Block Exemption Regulations relating to the sale of new cars before September 2002. [121594]

  Mr. Byers
  The current Block Exemption for motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements is a European Commission regulation. Member states have no power to amend it. Withdrawal of the benefit of the Block Exemption is one of several possible courses of action which the Competition Commission recommended for consideration. My Department is exploring the complex legal questions associated with these options, and is in close discussions with the European Commission.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in the retail, after sales and repair of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom. [121589]

  Mr. Byers
  According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), at December 1999, 329,913 people were employed in the retail, after sales and repairs of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses provide services and components to vehicle manufacturers in the United Kingdom; and how many people are employed in these businesses. [121591]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Community Hospitals Group
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the BUPA takeover of Community Hospitals Group to the Competition Commission in respect of the implications of vertical integration in the supply of private medical services. [121598]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will decide whether or not to refer this case to the Competition Commission in the light of the independent advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. Each case is considered on its individual merits.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage future inward investment into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [120504]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department's Invest in Britain Bureau will continue to promote the attractions of the UK for mobile international investment. The UK is the No. 1 location in Europe for inward investment and the Government are determined to ensure that this is maintained in the face of increasing competition from our European partners. We will continue to pursue economic policies which enhance the UK's attractions including developing our skills base, providing flexible labour markets and a stable economy.

  Competition Act 1998
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Competition Act 1998 in respect of local authorities. [121478]

  Dr. Howells
  The new systems which prohibit anti-competitive agreements undertakings, and abuse by an undertaking of a dominant position, came into force on 1 March 2000. The prohibitions apply to a local authority if it is acting as an undertaking, that is to say if it is acting in a commercial or economic capacity.

DEFENCE

  Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the study into options for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines; and if he will make a statement. [122119]

  Dr. Moonie
  My predecessor announced in March 1998 that we would undertake a study into options for the storage of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. The initial phase of our study has been completed. We have concluded that while afloat storage would remain a safe option, if suitable alternative venues could be identified, land storage offers the best overall solution in the long term. Further work will now be undertaken to determine which land storage option should be adopted. I expect this further work to take up to three years to complete.

  The purpose of the next phase will be to determine which land storage solution should be adopted. This work will be taken forward in conjunction with industry, who will be invited to submit their proposals, with a view to entering into a Public/Private arrangement. As part of the process, we will further develop one land storage option, the removal and storage of the intact reactor compartment and the recycling of the remainder of the submarine, as a basis for comparison with industry proposals. We have not identified specific land store sites, but would expect these to emerge from the proposals we receive from industry. No decision will be taken on the most suitable storage option, or on a site, until we have completed the next phase of the study, which will include full and open consultation. As part of this process, environmental impact assessments will be undertaken for each storage option taken forward.

  We are providing oral briefings to interested parties and the media, and material is also available on the MOD website. In addition, we are inviting written comments as a means of shaping and informing our further work and plan to consult widely during the next phase of the study.

  Separately, and in parallel, we have received an unsolicited commercial proposal from Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited, the owners of Rosyth Royal Dockyard, to dismantle the reactor compartment of one decommissioned nuclear submarine, HMS Renown, and store the components. This would be an alternative to the traditional nuclear decommissioning work planned to start at Rosyth later this year and would not lead to any overall increase in the radioactive waste already held there. The intermediate level waste from Renown would be held
  448W
  initially in the purpose built facility at Rosyth, but BRDL have been asked to make proposals for its eventual removal.

  The Babcock proposals will be taken forward in two stages and I have agreed that the first, which will involve feasibility and planning work only, may proceed. There will be no question of moving to the second, implementation, stage of the proposal until and unless we and the relevant regulatory authorities are entirely satisfied. In these circumstances I will make a further announcement.

  During this second stage, we will work with Babcock to produce an environmental impact assessment, which will involve public consultation. In addition, the company will have to satisfy the nuclear safety and environmental requirements of the independent regulators, including the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency before the dismantling work can begin. The company will be briefing local interest groups and the media tomorrow.

  In all of the above, safety remains of paramount importance and we will work to the same standards that apply to civil nuclear industry.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the remit of the technology transfer managers established by the Defence Diversification Agency to cover large firms. [120643]

  Dr. Moonie
  The White Paper, "Defence Diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology", does not restrict the remit of the DDA technology diversification managers to supporting only small and medium enterprises (SMEs). In its first year of operation the DDA has successfully assisted companies of all sizes. However, from an operational perspective the agency has to prioritise allocation of its resources and has tended to concentrate effort on SMEs. These companies, while contributing to UK's wealth and creating jobs, have less resources of their own than larger companies to access and thus benefit from DERA's technology.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation for damage to health by British nuclear test veterans have been made; and how many have been settled. [121613]

  Dr. Moonie
  My Department has recorded 144 claims for compensation from British Nuclear Test veterans. As there is no evidence of excess illness or mortality among British Nuclear Test veterans as a group which could be linked to their participation in the nuclear tests, no compensation claims from them have been settled. In any event, prior to May 1987, Service personnel were prevented from pursuing claims for compensation from the Ministry of Defence by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The repeal of section 10 by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 was not made retrospective and claims arising from injury or illness caused before the repeal are barred by law.
  449W
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met ex-British service personnel nuclear test victims to discuss compensation for damage to health; and if he will make a statement. [121614]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no meetings between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and British nuclear test veterans to discuss compensation. There have, however, been extensive exchanges of correspondence relating to compensation between Defence Ministers and the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, as well as with Members of Parliament.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received about compensation paid by the New Zealand Government for damage to health of servicemen as a result of nuclear tests. [121616]

  Dr. Moonie
  The New Zealand Government have not, to our knowledge, paid compensation to servicemen who participated in nuclear test programmes. However, we are aware that as a result of a New Zealand Inquiry into the health status of veterans' children, published last year, a programme of assistance to test veterans and their families, funded by their Government, was recommended. Such assistance was to take the form of case management, family counselling and genetic counselling where appropriate.

  In addition, the New Zealand Government announced on 29 April 2000 the grants of NZ$200,000 (about £60,000) to the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association, a one-time payment to assist the purposes of the Association, including further research and initiatives which provide support to the veterans and their families.

  UK Service Personnel (United Nations)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if UK servicemen serving under UN auspices are given UN pay. [121082]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. UK Service personnel deployed on UN operations continue to receive UK pay. However, UK Service personnel serving under UN auspices are entitled to UN personal allowances. Personnel serving in formed units received the UN Daily Allowance of $1.26 per day and a Rest and Recreation Allowance of $10.50 per day, for up to seven days leave. Troops serving as UN monitors receive a separate UN allowance of about $120.00 per day for the first 30 days of duty and about $90.00 per day thereafter, because they are responsible for finding their own food and accommodation. These rates are set in US dollars and are paid to UK personnel either in US dollars, pounds sterling or local currency depending on circumstances.

  MOD Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty Ministry of Defence houses in the United Kingdom are earmarked for(a). officers and (b) other ranks broken down by individual service; and if he will make a statement. [118651]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service Families Accommodation (SFA) is managed on a tri-Service basis and is provided according to entitlement i.e. rank and family size. A breakdown by individual Service is not therefore 450W
  available. The figures given are for SFA on mainland UK. As at 5 May 2000, there are 2,092 unoccupied officers' properties, of which 752 are allocated and 216 are undergoing refurbishment. There are also 12,437 unoccupied other ranks' properties, of which 4,007 are allocated and 1,359 are undergoing refurbishment.

  The majority of empty Service quarters are only temporarily so. There are over 22,000 Service family moves a year and this requires a management margin of empty stock ready for incoming occupants. An on-going modernisation programme and Defence reorganisations also demand that a considerable number of properties are empty while work is completed and further plans are clarified. Come 6,500 surplus properties are planned for disposal during the next two years.

  As at 2 May 2000, in Northern Ireland, there are 50 unoccupied officers' quarters of which 17 are allocated and three are undergoing refurbishment. There are also 423 other ranks' quarters of which 118 are allocated and 11 are undergoing refurbishment.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken by the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union to fill the post of Secretary General of the Western European Union. [120739]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  Javier Solana was appointed as Secretary General by the Council of the Western European Union on 25 November 1999. He is also the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and Secretary General of the Council.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries (Entry Charges)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the number of establishments that will benefit from the £1 single entry charge for museums and galleries. [120613]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Funds have been set aside and will be made available to enable the following currently charging national museums and galleries funded by my Department to introduce an admission charge of £1 from September 2001:

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Natural History Museum

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Imperial War Museum (Lambeth Road)

  National Maritime Museum

  Royal Armouries—Museum of Artillery, Fort Nelson.

  Final decisions on the introduction of the £1 charge rest with the Trustees of these institutions.

  I am also considering the extension of these arrangements to the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds; the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester; the Museum of London; the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside; and Tate St. Ives.
  451W
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the application of the £1 single entry charge to institutions which offer composite ticketing arrangements which allow entry to more than one institution on the same ticket. [121368]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Calculations of compensation for the introduction of the £1 single entry charge are based on estimates of the total visitor income for the individual institutions concerned, including the estimated proceeds from composite tickets. If trustees of institutions wish to introduce joint ticketing arrangements, that is a matter for their discretion.

  Badminton Association
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) public and (b) Lottery funds have been given to the Badminton Association of England in each of the last 10 years. [121103]

  Kate Hoey
  Details of Exchequer funding by Sport England to the Badminton Association of England is readily available only for years since 1994–95. These are:

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1994–95

  240,000

  1995–96

  240,000

  1996–97

  247,000

  1997–98

  286,000

  1998–99

  268,000

  1999–2000

  280,000

  Lottery funding for the Badminton Association of England's World Class Programme is as follows:

  £

  Period

  Amount

  1 September 1997 to 31 August 1998

  1,327,155

  1 September 1998 to 31 August 1999

  1,735,909

  1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000

  1,955,441

  The Badminton Association of England has also received a Lottery award of £3,653,847 for a National Badminton Centre.

  Funding (Audits)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) financial and (b) other audits his Department carries out on bodies funded through the Sports Council or by Lottery grants. [121102]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England carries out, on its own and on UK Sport's behalf (until October this year), a rolling programme of management audits of bodies in receipt of Exchequer funding which ensures that such bodies are reviewed at least once every three years. Audits cover corporate governance, accounting and financial management, asset management, financial stability, contracting and procurement, personal issues, grant conditions and current issues.
  452W
  Sport England also undertakes financial and award compliance checks on all schemes in receipt of lottery funding. These ensure adherence to award conditions and the avoidance of fraudulent claims. All lottery projects are also subject to post-completion monitoring which includes the operation and management of the facility.

  Athletics Facilities
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the Wenlock Olympian Society concerning funding for improvements for facilities for athletics; and when he will respond to them. [121356]

  Kate Hoey
  I received a letter from the Wenlock Olympian Society on 1 May. I will respond to the letter shortly.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the Midland Counties Athletic Association concerning the provision of athletics facilities at Much Wenlock. [121354]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has not received any representations from the Midland Counties Athletic Association.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is the policy of the Sports Lottery Council not to grant-aid athletics tracks of less than 400m in length; and if he will make a statement. [121357]

  Kate Hoey
  The Council of Sport England's policy in considering applications for lottery funding for athletics tracks is to follow the recommendations of UK Athletics as set out in the "National Athletics Facilities Strategy". The normal requirement is for a 400m track. However, the strategy allows some flexibility and states that where the criteria for the provision of such tracks are not met every encouragement will be given to lower key training facilities designed to meet local needs for certain disciplines, such as a sprint straights with a bend, pole vault run ups, high jump beds etc.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Friends of Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) civil servants, (b) ministers, (c) special advisers and (d) FCO Think Tank members who have addressed the Friends of Europe since its inception; in what capacity they spoke; at what cost; and if he will deposit the text of the speeches in the Library. [119814]

  Mr. Vaz
  At the request of the Centre for European Reform, Sir John Kerr, PUS, addressed a Friends of Europe/Centre for European Reform seminar in his official capacity on 14 April at the Belgian Ambassador's Residence in London. The title of the session was 'How much treaty reform does the EU need?' It was at no additional cost. He did not speak from a written text.

  Mr. Roger Liddle, in his capacity as a special adviser in the Prime Minister's Policy Unit, addressed an audience in Brussels on 24 January. The event was co-hosted by the Friends of Europe and the British

  453W
  Embassy in Belgium. The title of his talk was 'Economic Reform and Social Justice in a modern Europe'. The cost to the British Embassy of the event, including a reception afterwards was £1,690.03. Mr. Liddle did not speak from a written text.

  NATO Parliamentary Assembly
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the composition of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. [122291]

  Mr. Vaz
  My noble Friend Lord Sewel has replaced my noble Friend Lord Kennet as a member of the delegation.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department provides to the Indonesian Government on security sector reform. [121588]

  Mr. Battle
  We want to help the new reforming administration in Indonesia strengthen democratic control of the security forces. The attachment of a senior British police officer to our Embassy in Jakarta starting on 1 June, is a first step in our efforts to help bring this about. We are consulting others about appropriate international support for security sector reform in Indonesia.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning military attacks on the Nuba population of Sudan. [121582]

  Mr. Hain
  I am aware of a number of reports of military action in the Nuba Mountains and have received a number of representations about the bombing of a school in Kaouda in February of this year.

  We have raised the specific case of the school, and the general issue of aerial bombing, with the Government of Sudan, and an EU Declaration was published on the subject on 5 May.

  On 18 April, President Bashir announced that he had ordered the cessation of aerial bombings of targets in the South except where there was active fighting under way. We welcome this announcement and look to the Government of Sudan to honour it.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his discussions with the major supermarket chains on the prices paid for the milk they purchase. [119586]

  Ms Quin
  While pricing decisions are a matter for retailers, we know from our contact with them that the supermarkets are aware of the concerns of producers over the low prices they are receiving for their milk.
  454W
  At the 30 March summit we also removed dairy hygiene charges for farmers in England; announced that we are approaching the European Commission to remove the weight limit on the OTMS Scheme; and agreed to pay £22 million agrimonetary compensation to farmers. We have also encouraged the different parts of the food chain to come together and develop a code of practice so that farmers feel their concerns are being given greater weight.

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119433]

  Mr. Morley
  So that the Cabinet Office can publish the spring 2000 report monitoring progress towards delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005, we are currently collecting data which will include our progress on delivering 25 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2002.

  I do not want to pre-empt that report, but I can say that we currently provide a range of services electronically that includes:
  Application for cattle passports and notification of subsequent movements to the British Cattle Movement Service
  Applications for Cattle Eartag numbers from farmers via approved eartag manufacturers
  Date Based Export Scheme eligibility checks from approved abattoirs
  Submission of milk test details for the national dairy herd from contracted laboratories
  The CEFAS Agency is developing an interactive database to share data on live fish movements
  An extensive website that provides a wide range of information services to the public and to business, including the ability to download a selection of MAFF forms
  An electronic portal will soon be launched for farmers providing access from a single source to a wealth of information and advice available to them over the internet from Government, the NFU and business.

  Further, an electronic service delivery strategy covering all our transactions is being developed in line with Government targets, and by 2002 we expect to make available electronically the following:
  Submission of Farm Survey forms
  Submission of the majority of subsidy claims for MAFF and IBEA payments
  Downloading of all MAFF forms
  Interactive capabilities on the portal to inspire Internet trade and enhance business skills in the farming community.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has visited the Millennium Dome at Greenwich in an official capacity; and what plans he has to do so. [120585]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: I have not visited the Millennium Dome in a ministerial capacity.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the financial year 1998–99(a) the number and (b) the total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that (i) were put out to competitive tender, (ii) were not put to competitive tender and (iii) were let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109262]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: From records held centrally, for the financial year 1998–99 the Ministry let 144 contracts with external consultants and advisers at a total cost of £12,549,663 excluding VAT.

  Of these contracts
  (i) 84 contracts with a combined value of £11,782,555 excluding VAT were put to competitive tender. The names of these individuals and organisations are as follows:

  ADAS

  BMT Reliability Consultants

  BRE

  British Standards Institution

  Bulldog Contractors Ltd.

  Bytes Computers Ltd.

  CBG Consultants Ltd.

  Central Office of Information

  Chieumento Consulting Group

  Collinson and Grant Consultants

  Computer People

  Cornwell Affiliates Plc

  Deloitte and Touche

  Drew Associates

  DTZ Pieda

  Generic Software

  HEDRA Ltd.

  Johnson Construction

  MCG Consulting Group

  McKeown Software Ltd.

  Millennium Three

  National Remote Sensing Consultants

  Norwich Systems and Accounting

  PA Consulting Group

  Paisner and Co.

  Produce Studies Ltd.

  Quadraphic Design Ltd.

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  SEMA Group UK Ltd. UKBS

  Siemens Network Systems Ltd.

  Siemens Computer Systems

  Tatham Pearce

  Triad Group

  University of Edinburgh

  University of Reading

  WPS Consulting

  WS Atkins

  456W
  (ii) 60 contracts with a combined value of £767,108 excluding VAT were not put to competitive tender. The names of these individuals and organisations are as follows:

  ADAS

  Andrews Ward Associates

  Ove Amp and Partners

  K. Baker

  Baker Shepherd Gillespie

  R. Bradley

  Bristol Quality Centre

  Cambridge Strategic Management

  Chapman and Chapman Associates

  Cheviot Arcus

  Peter J. Chillingworth

  Cornwell Affiliates Plc

  Deloitte and Touche

  DERA

  Dewjoc Ltd

  DBL Consultancy

  D. Dickinson

  Facilities Solutions

  Foundation Systems

  Fonda

  Francis Graves Ltd.

  GRP Consultants

  Highthorne

  Gerry Hynes and Co. Ltd.

  ICL

  Independent Consultancy

  Insight Consulting

  R. Kimberlin

  Liaison VAT

  WE Mason

  McDermott Associates

  M. McDonald Ross

  Netools

  Organisation Consulting Partnership

  PA Consulting Group

  J. Parker

  PCMS

  PG Griffiths

  Prodat Plc

  The Project Team

  Proserve

  Prospect Management Services

  Rapra Technology

  Reading University

  RTC Ltd.

  SEMA

  Robert Shanks

  Mrs. Silvey

  AJ Small

  K. Taylor

  Thomason Partners

  Touchstone

  TMS Consultancy

  TP Engineering Ltd.

  457W

  Vogon International

  Water Research Council

  Yorkshire Assessment

  (iii) No contracts were let on a non-commercial basis.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the Quinquennial Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. [122224]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have recently received the Review Team's report on the first stage of the Quinquennial Review. The report, which follows extensive internal and external consultation, analyses the performance of the Northern Ireland Prison Service since it became an Agency in April 1995, including how it is perceived by the various bodies and interests affected by the services that it provides—including its own staff. It also considers the services likely to be needed in future and the organisational options for delivering them.

  It is clear from the report (a copy of which I am placing in the Library of each House) that the Prison Service has made considerable progress, in uniquely difficult circumstances, over the past five years. The report recommends unequivocally that Agency status should be retained as the most appropriate way of delivering custodial services in Northern Ireland.

  I have accepted that recommendation and have asked the Review Team to embark on the second stage of the review, examining how the effectiveness and efficiency with which the Prison Service delivers its services and functions can be further improved in the future. The culmination of this final stage of the review will be the publication in the Summer of a new Framework Document for the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the outside remunerated interests of the Chairman of the Parades Commission, Mr. Anthony Holland. [120501]

  Mr. Ingram
  Up to 30 April 2000 Mr. Holland was the Principal Ombudsman at the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau.

  As from 1 May 2000 he became a part time Ombudsman at the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau.

  Northern Ireland Forum
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost of producing the bound volumes of the reports of the Northern Ireland Forum; how many copies were produced; and to whom they were provided free of charge. [121255]

  Mr. Mandelson
  150 bound volume sets of the reports of the Northern Ireland Forum were produced at a total cost of £49,000 with copies being sent, free of charge, to 458W
  each member of the Forum. Copies will also be provided free of charge to libraries and other locations where they will be available for public reference.

HEALTH

  Prostate Cancer
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce PSA testing to screen for prostate cancer. [119730]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1997, the United Kingdom National Screening Committee recommended against introducing population screening for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen test. In the context of a national screening programme, the NSC concluded that the limited accuracy of the test could have led to a positive result for those without the disease. Follow-up procedures could have caused considerable unnecessary harm to healthy individuals.

  The UK National Screening Committee is now reviewing the evidence in the light of technological improvements. I expect to receive further advice on prostrate cancer screening on the basis of this research from the UK National Screening Committee later this year.

  Dental Services (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many more dentists Northamptonshire Health Authority needs to overcome its shortage of NHS dentists; [120725]

  (2) how many people telephoned Northamptonshire Health Authority from June to August 1999 about access to NHS dentistry; [120726]

  (3) what action the Government are taking to ensure that all children in Northamptonshire are registered with a dentist. [120728]

  Mr. Hutton
  Registrations per head of population in Northamptonshire show that 54 per cent. are registered with General Dental Service dentists. This is 6 per cent. higher than the national average. Since December 1998 the number of dentists in the area has increased by six and there are now nearly 171 dentists in the area.

  Of the 1,130 people who called Northamptonshire Health Authority seeking information on the availability of National Health Service dentists from June to August 1999, none called back unable to get placed with a National Health Service dentist.

  We recognise that in some parts of the country it remains difficult to access National Health Service dental care. Positive steps have already been taken to address this problem. NHS dentists in the Northamptonshire Health Authority have received £45,000 in Investing in Dentistry grants. This has gone towards establishing brand new practices that have already begun to register additional patients.

  Northamptonshire also has a second wave Personal Dental Services (PDS) pilot which is specifically targeted at increasing child registration. This is a co-operative

  459W
  approach between community dental service and three practices. It identifies children in need of care through school screening and offers follow up appointments.

  Discussions will continue with the profession at a local level to improve and modernise the service.

  NHS Administration Staff
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the net reduction in the number of administrative jobs as a result of replacing the NHS internal market; [120333]

  (2) how many administrative staff have been made redundant as a result of abolishing the NHS internal market. [120332]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, total National Health Service management costs in 1998–99 prices are shown in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  1,949

  1997–98

  1,846

  1997–98

  11,928

  1998–99

  1,870

  1999–2000

  21,816

  1 Rebased. The definition of management costs was revised for 1998–99 to capture some management activity previously excluded, mainly related to NHS trusts purchasing private sector support services. To provide a consistent time series, the 1997–98 figure was rebased on the new definition

  2 Projected

  GM Crops (Honey)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice his Department has prepared for beekeepers wishing to produce pure honey whose hives are located in the proximity of genetically modified crop plantings; [120695]

  (2) what compensation he pays to beekeepers who are prevented from describing honey produced by their bees as pure, by the proximity of genetically modified crop plantings; [120698]

  (3) how far beehives need to be located away from a genetically modified crop planting to ensure that the honey produced complies with labelling regulations for the use of the description pure. [120697]

  Ms Stuart
  There is no existing legislation which defines the use of the word "pure" in food labelling.

  However in October 1999 officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Department of Health Joint Food Safety and Standards Group wrote to the British Beekeepers Association and the British Honey Importers and Packers Association advising them that the presence of GM pollen in honey does not effect the labelling of honey. I am placing copies of the letters in the Library.

  Work carried out by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, a report of which is also available in the Library, indicates that the amount of genetically modified material in honey that might arise from bees foraging on GM crops is likely to be extremely small.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in the last five years the Audit Commission has investigated the administration of hospitals, with particular reference to hygiene. [120988]

  Mr. Denham
  The Audit Commission has informed us that according to its records neither the Commission nor its appointed auditors have carried out any investigations specifically concerned with hygiene in the last five years.

  Diabetes Services
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Audit Commission's report, "Testing Times: A Review of Diabetes Services in England and Wales"; and what actions he proposes to take. [R] [121124]

  Mr. Denham
  We welcome this important report. It highlights unacceptable variations in the quality of diabetes services. It is those variations that prompted us to announce last year the development of a National Service Framework for diabetes in England. The National Service Framework will set national standards and define service models to improve the quality of care for people with diabetes.

  We have sent copies of the Audit Commission report to members of the Expert Reference Group who will advise Ministers on the development of the National Service Framework and it will inform their work.

  General Osteopathic Council
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the General Osteopathic Council have been drawn from(a) the General Council of Registered Osteopaths, (b) the College of Osteopaths, (c) the Guild of Osteopaths, (d) the London Counties and Shires Physicians, (e) the SMAE Institute, (f) the British and European Osteopaths Association and (g) the NTOS; how the members of the council were chosen and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [121105]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: All members of the current General Osteopathic Council have been appointed by the Privy Council in accordance with our adopted policy on public appointments. Members have been chosen on the basis of individual merit and particularly for their ability to secure and maintain the highest standards of training, clinical practice and professional conduct. Professional members of the General Osteopathic Council do not represent any individual osteopathic body or training institution but act as ambassadors for the whole of the osteopathic profession.

  Following legal advice, nominations for each professional place on the Council have been sought from all bodies known to have a representative function for osteopaths. For the initial membership selection exercise, these were the bodies identified by the King's Fund

  461W
  Working Party on Osteopathy (whose report in 1991 provided the basis of the Osteopaths Act 1993) and known still to be in existence. The bodies were:

  The British Osteopathic Association

  The British and European Osteopathic Association

  The College of Osteopaths Practitioners Association and Register The General Council and Register of Osteopaths

  The Guild of Osteopaths

  The Natural Therapeutic and Osteopathic Society and Register.

  The King's Fund Working Party drew its list from a report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Services of professionally regulated osteopaths (1989).

  The claims to have a representative function of bodies which have come forward since the initial selection exercise have been considered on a case by case basis. The London Counties and Shires Physicians has not made any claims to Government to represent osteopaths. Nominations have not been accepted from the SMAE Institute on the basis that it is considered to be a training establishment and not a representative body. Nominations have, however, been accepted from the newly formed British Osteopathic Association and the General Osteopathic Council itself.

  ME and MS
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding additional funding for research into the causes of, and cure for,(a) ME and (b) MS; and if he will make a statement. [121353]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is as follows:

  Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)

  We have recently received representations in the form of Ministerial correspondence about provision for research into, and treatment of, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and the perceived lack of research into diagnosis and treatment for this condition.

  The National Health Service research and development programme is currently supporting the following research projects on CFS/ME:
  A systematic review to determine the clinical effectiveness of treatments and interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME—University of York
  Family Focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Adolescents with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome—King's College School of Medicine, London
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome after Acute Q Fever: A follow-up study of the 1989 outbreak cohort—Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham
  A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome—GKT School Medical School, London.

  Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

  The Department has recently received a large amount of correspondence from the public asking that additional funding be made available for research into the causes of and cure for multiple sclerosis (MS). There has also been some Ministerial correspondence and a Parliamentary Question which asked about treatment and research into multiple sclerosis during 1999.
  462W
  The Medical Research Council supported about a dozen projects on multiple sclerosis and associated demyelinating diseases in 1998–99 representing a spend of approximately £640,000 in that year.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. The Department is currently spending approximately £150,000 per year on projects related to MS.

  In addition, we have awarded the MS Society £15,000 per year from 1997–98 until 1999–2000 under the Section 64 scheme of grants, for their emerging therapies project.

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of the defibrillators to be placed in public locations in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire. [121292]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our scheme to provide life-saving heart defibrillators in public places was launched in April 2000. 700 defibrillators will be placed in railway stations, shopping centres, airports and bus stations across the country over the next year. Additional large public areas are currently being identified as potential sites.

  We do not yet have details of the exact locations of the defibrillators, nor of the implications for Shrewsbury and Atcham or Shropshire.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital's people management standards document issued to staff. [121291]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers welcome and want to encourage examples of good practice in the National Health Service. The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital's people management standards document, which identifies how staff can expect to be treated by the trust, supports our key priority of improving the working lives of NHS staff.

  Asthma
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to undertake further research into air pollution and asthma. [120159]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 May 2000]: The prevention and treatment of asthma are high priority topics within the Department's research programmes. The Department's Policy Research Programme has been funding for some years a programme of research on the public health aspects of asthma, aimed at providing a clearer scientific understanding of the causes of asthma and hence how it might be prevented. One of the major strands of research within this programme relates to studies on the effects of outdoor air pollution on patients with asthma. This work is currently funded until the end of the year, but it has been agreed to extend this contract for a further period and consideration is now being given to continuing the programme for a further five years.
  463W
  The Department has also funded a number of research projects that consider the possible effects of both indoor and outdoor pollution on asthma and respiratory disease. Many of these projects are still in progress and will continue over the next few years.

  CJD
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to NHS trust and social services departments on the care to be offered to those suffering from new variant CJD. [121137]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: Health Service Circular 1999/178 issued to National Health Service trusts, primary care groups, and others in August 1999, among other things drew attention to the resources available to health professionals when dealing with the care of patients suffering from all forms of CJD. The CJD Support Network, in collaboration with the Association of Directors of Social Services, has published good practice guidelines for social services professionals who care for variant CJD patients. In addition, we will shortly be publishing some new guidance intended for healthcare professionals. It will mention the importance of having a named 'key worker' in place after any diagnosis of CJD, whose role will be to co-ordinate all professional care. The National CJD Surveillance Unit, funded directly by the Department, also employs a care co-ordinator, to act as a source of advice and expertise to health care professionals.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average cost of caring for a patient suffering from new variant CJD. [121139]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The cost of caring for a patient suffering from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) varies considerably from case to case, but is generally considered to be in line with the cost of caring for a wide range of other terminally and chronically ill patients.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that general practitioners are aware of the presenting symptoms of new variant CJD. [121138]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The initial symptoms of variant CJD can be similar to much more common illnesses, and it is therefore difficult to diagnose the disease in its early stages. General practitioners presented with neurological or psychiatric symptoms in a patient would, however, be expected to refer such patients as necessary in the normal way to appropriate specialists, including neurologists. The National CJD Surveillance Unit, funded directly by the Department, keeps in regular touch with neurologists about CJD issues and has circulated to them details of those symptoms which would suggest that a case should be referred to the Unit for further investigation. In addition, the Unit disseminates information about variant CJD through the medical literature.

  Oncologists
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cancer units have a medical oncologist; [121691]
  464W
  (2) which cancer centres are without (a) a clinical oncologist and (b) a medical oncologist. [121641]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Calman/Hine report published in 1995 emphasised the importance of the integration of the work of cancer units with a cancer centre. Each cancer unit should have in place arrangements for non-surgical input (medical and clinical oncologists) into services. Local arrangements will depend on cancer site specialisation by the oncologist and the cancer unit, but sufficient time must be available in the cancer unit to guarantee a firm commitment to those local oncology services. Consequently individual clinicians may work in more than one trust.

  Results from the medical workforce census for England show that at 30 September 1999 there were (a) 700 clinical oncologists employed by 80 National Health Service trusts and (b) 380 medical oncologists employed by 70 NHS trusts.

  National Register for Clinical Trials
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Register for Clinical Trials has been established. [121690]

  Ms Stuart
  Details of research projects undertaken in the National Health Service are currently made available on the National Research Register, funded by the Department. The NRR has over 50,000 records and is available on CD-ROM and on line. To improve the information on clinical trials, the Department and the NHS are currently working in collaboration with its research partners to develop a national register of all funded clinical trials.

  Cancer Services
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cancer units and cancer centres fully comply with the Calman-Hine cancer guidelines; [121643]

  (2) how many cancer units are related to each cancer centre; [121642]

  (3) how many cancer centres there are in the UK; and if he will list them. [121640]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Calman/Hine report, "A Policy Framework for Cancer Care Services", recommended that networks of care should be developed encompassing primary care, cancer units and cancer centres. The report provided a broad framework for the development of cancer units and cancer centres, but it did not set explicit standards for their development. Early implementation of the Calman/Hine recommendations reflected the different starting points across the country and allowed an evaluation of services to fit local needs.

  Regional cancer co-ordinators from six of the eight health regions have identified cancer networks based on geographical patches shown in the table.

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Northern Cancer Network

  Cancer Care Alliance (Teesside)

  Yorkshire Cancer Network

  East Riding Cancer Services

  Alliance

  465W
  Eastern

  Norfolk and Waverney

  Cambridgeshire

  Mid Anglia

  Southend

  Mount Vernon

  South West

  Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire

  Dorset

  3 Counties Cancer Centre

  The Peninsula

  South East

  Kent Cancer Network

  South Solent Cancer Network

  Sussex Cancer Network

  4 Counties Cancer Network

  Guildford Cancer Network

  London

  North East London

  North Central London

  North West London

  South East London

  South West London

  Trent

  North Trent Network

  Mid Trent Network

  South Derbyshire Cancer Centre

  Leicestershire Cancer Centre.

  In the North West Region three zones have been identified

  North West

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside and Cheshire

  Lancashire and South Cumbria.

  In West Midlands a somewhat different approach has been adopted, based on tumour-specific networks.

  Regions have also adopted different approaches to the designation of cancer centres and cancer units, with joint cancer centres (encompassing two or more trusts) being designated in some regions.

  The following hospital and trusts provide radiotherapy facilities:

  Mount Vernon Hospital and Watford NHS Trust

  The Royal Hospitals Trust

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Havering Hospitals Trust

  Southend Healthcare NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals

  Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust

  Hammersmith Hospitals Trust

  Essex County Hospital

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  466W

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  Weston Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Lincoln County Hospital

  Addenbrookes Hospital

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire Hospital

  Mid Kent Oncology Centre

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  Guys and St. Thomas' Hospital

  Royal Surrey County Hospital

  Royal Sussex County Hospital

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology

  Christie Hospital

  Preston Acute Hospitals Trust.

  The National Cancer Director and regional offices are working with the National Health Service to develop this model on a more consistent basis, in line with best care set out in evidence based guidance. We intend to consult shortly on national standards for cancer which will permit a consistent approach to evaluation of cancer services.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if implant surgery for people with Parkinson's Disease is available throughout the country; and what the waiting times for such surgery are in each health authority area. [120642]

  Mr. Denham
  Patients in England with severe Parkinson's disease are usually under the care of neurologists. If, in their neurologist's opinion, neurosurgery may improve their disease then they can refer to specialist neurosurgical centres dealing with Parkinson's disease.

  There are at least eight centres in England carrying out implant surgery and a further eight at least doing neurosurgery for Parkinson's disease.
  467W
  Implant surgery for Parkinson's disease is complex and highly specialist and relatively new. It should be noted that the relative merits of implants in Parkinson's disease compared to drugs or more conventional surgery have not been thoroughly tested as yet. There are therefore sound reasons for limiting the number of centres where this service can be accessed until such time as its effectiveness is fully established.

  Officials are currently working with health authorities to develop the most appropriate commissioning framework for this service.

  Waiting times are as follows. As this is a rare operation not all health authorities have patients waiting.

  Waiting time statistics from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and the decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Finished consultant episodes where the main diagnosis was Parkinson's disease and the main operation was implant of neurostimulator into brain1, by waiting time (days) and health authority of residence—NHS hospitals England 1998–99

  Days patients waited

  Health authority

  1-91

  92-182

  183-365

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich

  1

  1

  0

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1

  0

  0

  QAW East London and the City

  1

  0

  0

  QCA East Norfolk

  1

  0

  0

  QCF Suffolk

  1

  0

  1

  QCG Barnsley

  1

  0

  0

  QCK Doncaster

  1

  0

  0

  QCL Leicestershire

  0

  2

  0

  QCW South Cheshire

  0

  1

  0

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire

  1

  0

  0

  QD2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0

  1

  0

  QD5 Somerset

  1

  0

  1

  QD6 South and West Devon

  1

  0

  0

  QD8 Avon

  1

  0

  0

  QD9 Birmingham

  0

  1

  0

  QDK North Cumbria

  1

  0

  0

  QDL South Humber

  1

  0

  0

  QEF Shropshire

  1

  1

  0

  QEJ South Staffordshire

  1

  0

  0

  QEN Worcestershire

  2

  1

  0

  Not known

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  17

  8

  3

  1 A09.1 Implantation of neurostimulator into the brain

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics 1998–99 (the latest full year available)

TREASURY

  EU Contract Compliance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government department is responsible for assessing the tendering of contracts within each European member country to ensure that each Government complies with EU law. [121620]
  468W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is the European Commission which monitors the tendering of public contracts in the European Union. Where appropriate, the Commission enforces compliance through proceedings against the member state in the European Court of Justice. Finns harmed by a breach of EC law can also seek remedies under national review systems which member states are required to establish. The Department of Trade and Industry's "Action Single Market" can assist UK firms who meet problems in other member states.

  Insurance Industry (Gender Discrimination)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on permitting discrimination between consumers by the insurance industry on the grounds of gender. [121510]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's view is that insurers can best service their customers by pricing policies selectively and competitively on the basis of an informed actuarial assessment of risk.

  Service Company Workers
  Mr. Russell
  Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax position of service company workers overseas. [122226]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Many other countries have rules that are similar to IR35 which discourage the use of service companies to disguise employment. Others are developing such rules at the present time.

  In some countries, a worker will be worse off than if they had stayed in the UK and fallen within IR35. These include Norway, Belgium and Germany.

  In the US, a service company worker may achieve a marginally higher level of take home pay, but this will be eroded by the additional expense of items such as health care insurance.

  In the Netherlands, a service company worker will be substantially worse off than in the UK. The Netherlands do have a generous tax regime for IT workers, but this regime applies only to those who work properly as employees and not to those who work through service companies.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average daily cost of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Union budget over the last three years. [121451]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom's net contribution in each of the year's 1996–97 to 1998–99, the latest three years for which outturn data are available, can be found at Table 13a, page 120, of the Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments (Cm 4615) published on 7 April 2000.

  Demutualisation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when and in what form the report of the Government Actuary and the Financial Services Authority into the demutualisation of Standard Life will be published; [121046]
  469W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government Actuary's duty to safeguard reasonable expectations of existing policyholders in the case of demutualisation of life insurers; [121048]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no specific procedure for demutualisation laid down in insurance legislation. In practice, a mutual life insurer proposing to demutualise normally transfers its insurance business to a proprietary company. Such a transfer of business requires court approval under the procedure in Schedule 2C to the Insurance Companies Act 1982. An independent actuary's report on the terms of the scheme is considered by the court. Anyone, including policyholders, with an interest can be heard by the court, as the regulator. If demutualisation is achieved, there is no statutory role for the Government Actuary in the process, but the regulator decides whether to make representations to the court or take any other action after appropriate actuarial advice. One important factor which is addressed is the safeguarding of policyholders' reasonable expectations.

  There is no formal proposal before the court to demutualise Standard Life.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to respond to the submission made by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in respect of the current annual pay review for its seagoing officers and ratings. [121363]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have just done so.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that future submissions made by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in respect of annual pay reviews will be responded to in time for the annual pay negotiations to be concluded by the agreed anniversary date. [121364]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Our aim is to respond within three weeks of receipt, unless additional information is required.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of families with dependent children are headed by(a) married couples, (b) cohabiting couples and (c) a lone parent by each type; [121365]

  (2) what percentage of dependent children live in families which are headed by (a) a married couple, (b) a cohabiting couple, (c) a parent who has never married, (d) a widowed parent, (e) a divorced parent and (f) a separated parent. [121366]

  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.
  470W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 11 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent questions on dependent children and the marital status of heads of families. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  Estimates of marital status and family composition are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) household datasets, which are available for the spring and autumn quarters of each year. The latest available LFS estimates of dependent children and the marital status of heads of family units are for the autumn (September to November) quarter of 1999 and are given in the tables attached.
  The first table gives non-seasonally adjusted LFS estimates of dependent children by the marital status of the head of family unit, the second gives estimate of families with dependent children, again by the marital status of the head of family unit.

  Table 1: Dependent children 1 by marital status of head of family—UK, autumn (September-November) 1999

  Number

  Dependent children in all family units (thousands)= 100 per cent.

  14,638

  Percentage of dependent children where head of family is:

  Married

  71.1

  Co-habiting

  8.7

  Single, never married

  7.0

  Widowed

  1.1

  Divorced

  6.9

  Separated

  5.2

  Table 2: Families with dependent children 1 by marital status of head of family—UK, autumn (September-November) 1999

  Number

  All families with dependent children (thousands)= 100 per cent.

  7,471

  Percentage of which headed by:

  Married couple

  67.9

  Co-habiting couple

  10.0

  Male lone parent

  2.2

  Female lone parent

  19.9

  1 Dependent children are defined as all 0 to 15-year-olds and 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, ONS

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of households is headed by a person who is(a) married, (b) cohabiting, (c) single, (d) widowed, (e) divorced, (f) separated and (g) cohabiting with someone of the same sex. [121367]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 11 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question about the marital status of heads of households. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  Estimates of marital status and household composition are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) household datasets, which are available for the spring and autumn quarters of each year. The latest available LFS estimates of the marital status of heads of households are for the autumn (September to November) quarter of 1999 and are given in the table attached.
  471W

  Head of household by marital status UK, autumn (September-November) 1999

  Number

  Total households (thousands)= 100%

  24,433

  Percentage of which whose head is:

  Married

  51.3

  Cohabiting

  7.6

  Single

  14.7

  Widowed

  14.1

  Divorced

  8.5

  Separated

  3.6

  Cohabiting with same sex

  0.2

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, ONS

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the usual gross weekly household incomes as referred to in table 3.8 of Living in Britain 1998, of households headed by a person who is(a) married with dependent children, (b) married with no children or non—dependent children, (c) cohabiting with dependent children, (d) cohabiting with no children or non—dependent children, (e) a lone mother with dependent children, (f) a

  Family type by usual gross weekly household income Population: All families

  Married with dependants (%)

  Married with on dependants (%)

  Cohabiting no dependants (%)

  Cohabiting no dependants (%)

  Lone mother with dependants (%)

  Lone father with dependants (%)

  Lone parent no dependants (%)

  Single person (%)

  Same Sex

  Total (%)

  Nil

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2—

  1

  £0.01-£50.00

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  2—

  1

  £50.01-£100.00

  1

  1

  3

  2

  26

  27

  4

  23

  2—

  10

  £100.01-£150.00

  2

  9

  5

  3

  24

  15

  7

  15

  2—

  10

  £150.01-£200.00

  3

  10

  6

  4

  13

  8

  7

  11

  2—

  9

  £200.01-£250.00

  3

  8

  5

  5

  8

  13

  15

  9

  2—

  7

  £250.01-£300.00

  4

  8

  9

  3

  7

  0

  8

  6

  2—

  6

  £300.01-£350.00

  6

  6

  7

  7

  6

  2

  15

  6

  2—

  6

  £350.01-£400.00

  6

  6

  8

  6

  4

  3

  6

  5

  2—

  5

  £400.01-£450.00

  8

  6

  9

  5

  2

  7

  4

  4

  2—

  5

  £450.00-£500.00

  8

  5

  9

  6

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2—

  5

  £501.01 or more

  58

  39

  37

  57

  6

  20

  29

  13

  2—

  32

  Total cases

  1,571

  2,332

  224

  338

  542

  60

  206

  2,759

  32

  18,064

  1 Bases exclude cases where income is not known

  2 These are number of cases and not percentages as the total number of cases is too small for reliable analysis

  Source:

  General Household Survey 1998

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the percentage of women with a child aged(a) four years or under, (b) between five and nine years and (c) between 10 and 15 years who (i) work full-time, (ii) work part-time, (iii) are unemployed and (iv) are economically inactive. [121325]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 11 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question about the economic status of women with young children. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  Estimates of economic status are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) which is the major ONS source of labour market data
  472W
  lone mother with no children or non-dependent children, (g) a lone father with dependent children, (h) a lone father with no children or non-dependent children, (i) a single person, (j) a same sex couple and (k) not in any of the categories above. [121319]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 11 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question about the usual gross weekly household income according to the status of the head of the household. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The attached table shows data from the General Household Survey. The GHS is a continuous, multi-purpose survey based on a random sample of the general population resident in private households in Great Britain. It has been carried out by the Social Survey Division of ONS since 1971, and is commissioned by a number of Government Departments and is widely used for policy and planning purposes.
  Interviewing took place during the period April 1998 to March 1999. Interviewers collected information from 15,853 adults aged 16 and over in 8,636 households.
  on individuals. The table attached gives non-seasonally adjusted LFS estimates of the economic status of women of working age (16-59 years) with young children in the winter (December to February) quarter of 1999–2000.
  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they are temporarily away from their current job. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation convention.
  Classification by whether a person works full or part-time is based on the respondent's own assessment.
  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.

  473W
  People aged 16 or over are classed as economically inactive by the LFS if they are not in employment and do not satisfy the criteria for ILO unemployment. This includes those who want a job but who

  Women aged 16-59 by economic status and age of youngest de pendent child—UK Winter 1999–2000 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage

  With youngest dependent child aged

  All women

  0-15

  0-4

  5-9

  10-15

  All women (thousands = 100 per cent.)

  17,277

  6,913

  3,050

  1,977

  1,885

  All in employment1

  68.8

  63.3

  52.9

  68.8

  74.3

  —part-time2

  39.0

  24.6

  18.3

  23.9

  35.3

  —full-time2

  29.7

  38.7

  34.6

  44.9

  39.0

  ILO unemployed

  3.8

  3.9

  3.7

  4.4

  3.6

  Economically inactive

  27.5

  32.9

  43.4

  26.8

  22.1

  1 Includes those who did not say whether they worked full or part-time.

  2 Classification based on respondent's self-assessment.

  Source:

  Labour Force

  Survey, ONS

  Exchange Rate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much sterling has changed its value in comparison with the currency of each of Britain's 30 leading trading partners since May 1997. [121021]

  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 John Kidgell to Mr. Vincent Cable, dated 11 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on the value of sterling. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The attached tables show how sterling has moved against the currencies of 30 of the UK's major trading partners between 14 May 1997 and 4 May 2000.
  The exchange rates data have been provided by the Bank of England.

  Currency movements against sterling 1 between 14 May 1997 and 4 May 2000 for UK's top 30 trading partners2

  £ exchange rate

  Country

  14 May 1997

  at 4 May 2000

  % change on May 1997

  Exports

  United States

  1.6412

  1.5448

  -6

  Germany

  2.791

  3.3862

  +21

  France

  9.4

  11.3574

  +21

  Netherlands

  3.1388

  3.8149

  +22

  Ireland

  1.0778

  1.3636

  +27

  Italy

  2748.0417

  3352.525

  +22

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  57.6061

  69.6859

  +21

  Spain

  235.5943

  288.0743

  +22

  Sweden

  12.4884

  14.0407

  +12

  Japan

  194.0719

  166.85

  -14

  Switzerland

  2.3633

  2.6782

  +13

  Saudi Arabia

  6.1545

  5.7926

  -6

  Norway

  11.559

  14.0294

  +21

  Australia

  2.1092

  2.6095

  +24

  Canada

  2.2744

  2.314

  +2

  Hong Kong

  12.6967

  12.0338

  -5

  Denmark

  10.6253

  12.8969

  +21

  South Africa

  7.3559

  10.663

  +45

  Singapore

  2.3527

  2.6581

  +13

  Portugal

  280.6288

  347.1166

  +24

  Turkey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland

  8.4192

  10.293

  +22

  India

  58.837

  67.4228

  +15

  Greece

  445.914

  582.33

  +31

  Austria

  19.6452

  23.8208

  +21

  Poland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  474W
  have not been seeking work in the last 4 weeks, those who are seeking work but are not available to start and those who do not want a job (for example, students not working or seeking work).

  Currency movements against sterling1 between 14 May and 4 May 2000 for UK's top 30 trading partners2

  £ exchange rate

  Country

  14 May 1997

  at 4 May 2000

  % change on May 1997

  Israel

  5.5784

  6.326

  +13

  Brazil

  1.7526

  2.803

  +60

  Russia

  9.4714

  43.8569

  +363

  Malaysia

  4.1388

  5.8702

  +42

  Imports

  United States

  1.6412

  1.5448

  -6

  Germany

  2.791

  3.3862

  +21

  France

  9.4

  11.3574

  +21

  Netherlands

  3.1388

  3.8149

  +22

  Italy

  2748.0417

  3352.525

  +22

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  57.6061

  69.6859

  +21

  Japan

  194.0719

  166.85

  -14

  Spain

  235.5943

  288.0743

  +22

  Ireland

  1.0778

  1.3636

  +27

  Switzerland

  2.3633

  2.6782

  +13

  Sweden

  12.4884

  14.0407

  +12

  Hong Kong

  12.6967

  12.0338

  -5

  Norway

  11.559

  14.0294

  +21

  Canada

  2.2744

  2.314

  +2

  China

  13.6097

  12.7908

  -6

  Denmark

  10.6253

  12.8969

  +21

  Singapore

  2.3527

  2.6581

  +13

  Finland

  8.4192

  10.293

  +22

  Portugal

  280.6288

  347.1166

  +24

  Taiwan

  45.5597

  47.3404

  +4

  South Korea

  1455.9085

  1716.659

  +18

  Australia

  2.1092

  2.6095

  +24

  Malaysia

  4.1388

  5.8702

  +42

  South Africa

  7.3559

  10.663

  +45

  Austria

  19.6452

  23.8208

  +21

  India

  58.837

  67.4228

  +15

  Russia

  9.4714

  43.8569

  +363

  Turkey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Thailand

  42.5399

  59.4362

  +40

  Greece

  445.914

  582.33

  +31

  1 There is no such thing as an 'official exchange rate'. Exchange rates vary during the day and depending on what time you measure them will influence any average rate calculated. The Bank of England measures representative exchange rates in the London interbank market every day at around 4pm. These rates are the spot middle market rates i.e. The difference between the bid rate (what a bank will sell currency to you at) and the offer rate (what bank will buy a currency from you at) for spot) i.e. Today-but may settle in two to seven days time).

  2 Based on the value of trade in goods and services (exports and imports) in 1998.

  Source:

  UK Balance of Payments 1999 edition

  Bank of England and ONS

  GDP
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total gross domestic product in 1999. [121411]

  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 John Kidgell to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated 11 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on Gross Domestic Product (GDP). I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The most recently published data for annual GDP was released on the 27th of March 2000. GDP at current market prices for 1999 was £889,874 million, an increase of 5.0% on the previous year. GDP at 1995 constant market prices for 1999 was £788,729 million, an increase of 2.1% on the previous year.

  Pension Contributions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the effect is on the maximum pension contributions eligible for tax relief for(a) the employer and (b) the employee if a pay increase is (i) compulsorily staged by the employer and (ii) voluntarily foregone by the employee. [121369]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 May 2000]: In broad terms, tax relievable pension contributions that an employee may pay are based on a percentage of taxable earnings received for a year of assessment.

  The treatment of employer contributions depends on the type of pension scheme. With tax approved occupational pension schemes, the employer's contributions are set by the scheme actuary according to the level of benefits promised by the scheme. For a personal pension scheme, total contributions by the employee and employer combined must not exceed an age-related percentage of the employee's taxable earnings for the year.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) has been spent since May 1997 and (b) is projected to be spent in the next 12 months on measures to meet Public Service Agreement targets. [121012]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Public Service Agreements published following the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) set out the outputs and outcomes the Government are seeking to achieve with the resources allocated for the CSR period. Those spending plans can be found in the CSR White Paper published in July 1998 (Cm 4011).

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public service agreement targets(a) have been met in full, (b) are on course to be met and (c) have been abandoned. [121013]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: A full report of progress against PSA targets has been included in each Department's Annual Report, recently published jointly with the Treasury.
  476W
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public service agreement targets have been set to date. [121016]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Government's White Paper "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability" (Cm 4181, December 1998), with the supplement published in March 1999 (Cm 4315), set out all of the Public Service Agreements agreed following the Comprehensive Spending Review of 1998.

  ISAs
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who(a) hold and (b) have held a mini ISA and a maxi ISA simultaneously. [121014]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Inland Revenue currently has no estimates of this kind. However, compliance checks are undertaken after the end of the tax year, based on ISA managers' annual information returns. Estimates based on these returns will be available later in the year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has(a) undertaken,(b) commissioned and (c) reviewed on the efficiency of the Private Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [120925]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Treasury has commissioned two reports on PFI, focusing on the efficiency of the PFI process. These were the first and second reviews of PFI Policy undertaken by Sir Malcolm Bates in the Spring/Summer of 1997 and in the Spring/Summer of 1999. These were published respectively on 23 June 1997 and on 22 July 1999.

  In June 1999, the Treasury Taskforce commissioned Arthur Andersen to undertake a study of value for money in a range of operational PFI projects. The results of the findings were published on 17 January 2000 in "Value for Money Drivers in the Private Finance Initiative".

  Copies of all these reports were placed in the Library of the House.

  The Treasury has also published Public Private Partnerships: The Government's Approach on 15 March 2000.

  London Stock Exchange Merger
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the proposed merger of the London Stock Exchange and the Deutsche BÖrse; and if he will make a statement. [121671]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None. The terms of the proposed merger are a matter for the parties involved, subject to their securing the necessary approval of the relevant regulatory and competition authorities.

  Investment Services Directive
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation the Government have had on the proposed reform of the Investment Services Directive. [121669]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The European Commission's Communication "Implementing the Framework for Financial Markets: Action Plan" (COM (1999)232) includes a proposal for a Commission Green Paper on upgrading the Investment Services Directive.

  Performance indicator

  Target 2000–01

  KPI 1

  The quality of service provided to court users

  85 per cent

  KPI 2

  The percentage of administrative work in the civil courts processed within target time

  94 per cent

  KPI 3

  The percentage of Crown Court cases that commence within target

  78 per cent

  KPI 4

  Average waiting time for asylum appeals from receipt at the Immigration Appellate Authority to promulgation of the Adjudicator's decision

  16 weeks

  KPI 5

  The percentage of the cost of the civil courts recovered through fees

  94 per cent

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason at the launch of the new Community Legal Service an actress was used to portray the legal needs of poor women on video. [121673]

  Mr. Lock
  Actors were used to preserve client confidentiality because the video illustrated real case histories provided by advice workers. It was made clear, at the time of the launch, that actors were used when the video was introduced in order to illustrate and explain these issues.

  Family Law
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the timetable for the Government's response to the recommendations of the Advisory Board on Family Law Children Act Sub-Committee on(a) good practice guidelines for courts in relation to parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence and (b) training for the Court Welfare Service and the judiciary in understanding the effects of domestic violence on children and parents. [121317]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor welcomes the Report on Contact between Children and Violent Parents from the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law. He agreed to make the report available in draft to the Court of Appeal so that it could consider the proposed guidelines in four appeals on this subject which were heard in March and on which judgment has been reserved. Once judgment in those cases has been given, the Lord Chancellor will consider with the President of the Family Division what further action may be necessary. The Family Court Welfare Service is currently the responsibility of the Home Office but I understand that induction for family court welfare officers addresses the issue of domestic violence. As part of the development of the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), which will fall within the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department, current training arrangements are being

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Service
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for the Court Service Executive Agency for 2000–01. [122147]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for the Court Service for 2000–01.

  reviewed, with a view to identifying developments and improvements for the new service. Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board which already provides core training on domestic violence.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ministerial Speech (Association of British Insurers)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of his recent speech to the Association of British Insurers. [121526]

  Mr. Darling
  My remarks to the annual dinner of the Association of British Insurers were not delivered from a prepared text.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if stakeholder pensions are intended for(a) moderate and high earners and (b) low earners. [121527]

  Mr. Darling
  The Pensions Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: partnership in pensions", published in December 1998, set out that stakeholder pension schemes will be open to everyone.

  Stakeholder pensions are primarily intended for moderate earners—those earning between about £10,000 and £20,000 a year—but many higher earners will also be able to take advantage of the lower charges, greater flexibility, and simpler tax regime which stakeholder pension schemes will introduce.

  The Green Paper also describes our proposals to introduce the State Second Pension. This will specifically benefit low earners on incomes of less than £10,000 a year.

  IT Procurement
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each item of IT procurement with a value over £10,000 agreed with Electronic Data Systems
  479W
  by his Department since 1 May 1997; when each contact was agreed; when the delivery began; when the system became fully operational; and if the system is still in use. [121622]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answers provided by the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Faith Boardman on 5 May 2000,Official Report, columns 253-54W, and the former Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison on 18 April 2000, Official Report, columns 551-52W. These replies set out the current departmental position on IT procurements agreed with EDS since I May 1997.

  ONE Service
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of the women who have used the single work-focused gateway were(a) single mothers, (b) married, (c) widows and (d) carers; and what steps have been taken to ensure that staff who operate this service are trained to give the proper advice to each category of women; [121099]

  (2) what proportion of the clients who have used the single work-focused gateway have been women in the pilot projects in (a) Great Britain and (b) Clyde Coast and Renfrew. [121101]

  Angela Eagle
  Currently, the information we collect from the ONE pilot offices is not broken down by gender or marital status.

  April 1998

  April 1999

  April 2000

  April 2001

  Price uprating of RP (based on previous September RPI)

  3.6

  3.2

  1.1

  3.4

  Earnings uprating of RP (based on previous September AEI)

  4.1

  4.9

  4.4

  4.3

  Earnings uprating of the MIG (based on three months to previous July AEI)

  —

  —

  4.6

  4.9

  Notes

  1. The minimum income guarantee (MIG) is uprated by average earnings index (AEI), based on an average of three months to July of the previous year. Actual AEI used for April 2000 uprating and an assumption for 2001 uprating. It is assumed that the take-up rate of the MIG remains broadly constant. Therefore any effects of this year's take-up campaign are not included.

  2. The assumptions for Retirement Pension are actual price uprating to April 2000, based on previous September's Retail Prices Index (RPI), and an estimate of September 2000 RPI for 2001 uprating. Earnings uprating is based on previous September's average earnings figures up to April 2000, with an estimate of September 2000 earnings for April 2001 uprating.

  480W
  Currently, the information we collect is not broken down by gender. Neither is information on marital status collected.

  However, in the first seven months, the basic model ONE service was used over 72,000 times to make a claim to benefit. Over 60,000 of these were claims for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). Of the non-JSA claims, around 22 per cent. were claims for Income Support for lone parents, and around 8 per cent. were claims for other benefits including Widows' Benefit and Invalid Care Allowance.

  ONE Personal Advisers receive individual tailored training through the ONE Learning Assessment Framework which has been specifically designed to match training provision with the individual training needs of staff. The Framework will be used by staff to review their learning needs and assess their competence development, which will provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to deal professionally with all ONE clients, including lone parents, widows and carers.

  State Pension
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town of 11 April 2000,Official Report, column 144W, on the state pension, what assumptions underlay his answer regarding future rates of increase in prices and earnings and increases in take-up of income support. [121194]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

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

Public Inquiries: Appointment of Judges
Lord Windleshamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy regarding the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or Lords Justices of Appeal to chair or carry out public inquiries or reviews.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the Government, in common with their predecessors, consider the demands of each inquiry individually. Judges are not obliged to accept the chairmanship of difficult inquiries. They do so out of a strong sense of public duty. The public have confidence in judges because of their well-founded reputation for independence and impartiality. Their standing especially qualifies them for inquiries where there is serious public disquiet: for example, under this Administration, the Lawrence inquiry under Sir William Macpherson; BSE under the noble Lord, Lord Phillips; Bloody Sunday under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville; under our predecessors, the Hillsborough disaster under Lord Justice Taylor; the suspension of BCCI under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham; and standards in public life under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. Judges also bring to the inquiries a lifetime's experience in the assessment of disputed evidence.
There is another category where judges have special expertise: for example, under this Administration, Thames river safety and the Marchioness disaster under Lord Justice Clarke, the former Admiralty judge; and the criminal courts under Lord Justice Auld, mirroring under our predecessors the civil justice review under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, the House will appreciate that very full Answer by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Bearing in mind that there are only 12 serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, is it not deeply unsatisfactory, to say the least, that two full-time members of what, after all, is the final court of appeal should have been prevented from sitting judicially, other than on rare occasions, for such very long periods? One of the current Law Lords is engaged on an inquiry estimated to take three years, and another on an inquiry which is estimated to last four years in all.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it really is a question of where the balance of public interest lies in
1716
having judges of exceptional quality chair these inquiries at undoubtedly some, but I would say manageable, loss to the justice system. I shall deal with the cases raised by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is committed to the BSE inquiry and has been since December 1997. He will report in September. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, is committed to Bloody Sunday. It is impossible to set a completion date, which could well be two years away. Lord Justice Auld is likely to report on the criminal courts by the year end. Lord Justice Clarke will begin his inquiry into the Marchioness disaster in October. He hopes to report early in the new year.
This does represent some loss of judicial resources of very high quality. However, the system is coping well. Retired Law Lords are willing to sit. It is to their great credit that they are, and they do so quite often. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Nolan and Lord Cooke of Thorndon, are ready to sit. In the Court of Appeal, many retired judges are ready to sit when invited. Rather than list 10 or so names, I shall write to the noble Lord. It is all a question of the balance of public interest.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether judges are always essential for these inquiries.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I accept that it is not only judges who possess judicial qualities. Therefore, they are not essential. At the moment, for example, Professor Ian Kennedy, an acknowledged expert on medical ethics and medical negligence, is conducting the inquiry into the medical problems at the Bristol Infirmary. John Uff, who has the advantage of being both an engineer and a Queen's Counsel, is conducting the inquiry into the Southall rail crash. Therefore, no; judges are not absolutely essential, and there are many examples of inquiries conducted under non-judicial chairmen.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, now that the retiring age for the senior judiciary has been reduced from 75 to 70, would it perhaps be practicable to make more use of recently retired senior members of the judiciary to conduct the inquiries, as was done, for example, with Sir William Macpherson in the case of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry? That would release the Law Lords for their proper job of deciding cases as members of the judiciary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course, I always consider that option. In relation to the recent problems at Westminster Abbey, a retired Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, served on the inquiry. In relation to the recent griefs at the Law Society, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, a retired Law Lord, performed that function. Therefore, they, too, certainly are a resource, but even retired Law Lords are entitled to a retirement.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, as one who, although not included in the noble and learned Lord's roll of

1717
honour, has been called upon to chair some of these inquiries, which many years ago I esteemed a very great honour and privilege, perhaps I may welcome in general terms the noble and learned Lord's balanced approach as between serving Law Lords or Lords Justices of Appeal and retired ones. However, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord one question. Does he agree that the essence of the problem lies in the very great and increasing length of the reviews and inquiries? Whereas the normal length used to be approximately six months, par for the course is now approximately two years, with the possibility of bogeys and double bogeys of cases extending to three and four years. Therefore, might there not be a case for looking at the procedure of the inquiries and perhaps modernising and simplifying them, rather in line with the Woolf reforms in the area of civil justice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we must not underestimate the scale and difficulty of the task in some of the inquiries and the enormous public importance that is attached to achieving a report which will command general public acceptance. The inquiry will have failed in its purpose, and perhaps even the judges' reputation for independence and impartiality will be adversely affected, if the reports do not command general assent. The BSE inquiry is enormously burdensome and, in my view, has been carried out with great dispatch by a judge of the highest quality. And I do not believe that any of us would underestimate the difficulties that affect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, in seeking to give satisfaction in relation to Bloody Sunday—an issue which divides the community in Northern Ireland.

Looted Art: Claims Panel Timetable
3.9 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made by the Spoliation Advisory Panel of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the achievement of justice for the owners of looted art which is now in British public collections.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Spoliation Advisory Panel will meet for the first time on 8th June. The panel is expected to adopt its terms of reference and to agree its rules of procedure which will set out the timetable for submissions by claimants and responses from institutions. That will determine the date when it will hear the claim received against a painting in the Tate Gallery.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the whole purpose of the process is to seek to achieve some measure of justice for survivors of the Nazis who had property stolen from them? In many cases the property
1718
was stolen from people who were murdered or who died, so justice is sought for their families and heirs? If so, a prime purpose of the panel—one expects to see this in its terms of reference—should be to ensure that where owners are clearly identified they are able to choose what happens to their property. Does my noble friend agree that where practicable they should be able to decide whether, as in the case of the owners of the Griffier that is in the Tate Gallery, they leave it where it is and come to a reasonable arrangement or whether the item is returned to them because it is their property and justice has been denied to them for too long?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have been fortunate in being able to set up an expert and entirely independent panel. That panel is considering its terms of reference and rules of procedure. It will proceed on a case-by-case basis and make its own judgment. It will take into account the point made by my noble friend, but I do not believe, in considering such cases, it is for the Government to point it in any particular direction. I agree with the point, to which I believe my noble friend refers, that the draft terms of reference propose mutual exclusivity between compensation and an explanatory pack. I agree that they should not be mutually exclusive.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, as noble Lords will agree, this is a complex and sensitive matter. The Question on the Order Paper relates to British collections. However, works of art that were looted from victims of the Holocaust could have gone to collections all over the world. Is there any liaison or contact between the department of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and similar authorities in other countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is probably aware that in addition to the initiatives that have been taken in this country—I pay credit to my noble friend Lord Janner for his part, two years ago, in those initiatives—we are all working on the basis of the recommendations of the Washington conference on Holocaust era assets. In that sense, as many countries as possible are working on the same basis. Clearly, my department will be keen to take part in any international co-operation that is required.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if a gallery has purchased a painting in good faith after it has passed through many hands—it may have been marketed by Nazi leaders through Switzerland or through other sources—and no known heirs can be traced, does a gallery have title to the work of art or do further searches have to be conducted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, this is an enormously complicated matter. I do not believe that I can give a general answer as to the circumstances in which the gallery will have title. I believe it will depend on each individual case. That is why we have an expert,

1719
independent panel to make recommendations on each case. Basically, I do not believe that the Government should keep a dog and bark themselves.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while I fully support the advisory panel in its future work, some owners, and even their heirs, are very elderly. Do the Government agree that time is important in deciding these matters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we agree with the noble Lord. For that reason, when the issue was raised two years ago, the museum directors' conference immediately set up a body of experts to search for works of art that might fall within the category of spoliation. Those experts have carried out intensive inquiries, not only in national museums and galleries, but in all recognised museums and galleries in this country. So far, only one case has come forward. As soon as that happened we took steps to set up our advisory panel. However, we regret that it has taken a long time.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that point.
Noble Lords: Ask!
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, there is a degree of disappointment that eight months have elapsed since the Government's proposals were announced but the one claim is still outstanding. Sadly, the claimant is elderly and unwell. Can the Minister indicate how much longer the claimant will have to wait?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I well understand the disappointment to which the noble Lord refers. When the claim was made in the summer of last year, first, we had to find a chairman. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his department assisted us in finding the distinguished judge, Sir David Hirst, for that position. Then we had to adopt Nolan procedures to find the members of the panel. We had to consult on the membership of the panel with a wide body of people whom last month I listed in a Written Answer. The panel members—distinguished and busy people—had to find time in their diaries to meet. As I said, they will meet on 8th June. As soon as they have set up their procedures, I am sure that they will proceed as quickly as possible towards the determination of the case before them.

Tibet: Human Rights
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the United States in its appeal for a codified approach to the human rights situation in Tibet, based on pressing China to respect international human rights standards.
1720
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the human rights situation in Tibet remains a matter of serious international concern. We, in common with the United States and our EU partners, use every available opportunity to press the Chinese Government to respect international human rights standards in Tibet. We also continue to press the Chinese Government to enter into a genuine dialogue with the Dalai Lama with the aim of finding a long-term political solution.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the fact that China has now signed the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights, although it has not ratified that. Does the Minister agree that in the past few months there has been a considerable worsening of restrictions on religious expression in Tibet and a crackdown on the free media? Given that, in Geneva, the EU could not form a common position, but decided to recommend that it would follow a basis of seeing whether results justified the continuation of the acceptance of what China had to say, can she tell the House how we should define such results-based outcomes? Will the dialogue continue regardless of whether there are results that indicate China's greater concern for human rights in Tibet?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness about the difficulties that Tibetans are experiencing now. Tibet remains an area where we have serious concerns for human rights. We are deeply worried at the reports of continued arbitrary detention, torture and reeducation of monks and nuns. We have not ignored Tibet; we have kept it at the forefront of our minds. We take the issue seriously and the issue of human rights in Tibet, including the cases of individual Tibetans, is raised at every opportunity and at the highest level.
It is difficult to give the noble Baroness a prescription of the outcomes. She is aware that we have entered into a number of programmes with the Chinese in relation to the human rights dialogue in terms of their judiciary, their lawyers and their infrastructure. We are pursuing that with vigour. On a continuing basis, we are trying to assess and re-assess the situation. I can assure the noble Baroness that we share the anxieties that she has expressed and that we shall continue to keep a keen eye on whether the process of dialogue is working in the way that we would like.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following on from the first Answer given by the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and in the spirit of open government and transparency, can she tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary discussed Tibet with the President of China during his recent visit? If he did press the president on the human rights situation in Tibet, what was the response?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know, because this matter has come

1721
before the House on previous occasions, that my right honourable friend did raise issues in relation to human rights with his opposite number and that extensive discussions took place on those issues. I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise details. She will recall that, at the same time, further discussions were taken forward with officials so that a comprehensive set of discussions on human rights went ahead during that period.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I should declare an interest as patron of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tibet. Is the Minister satisfied that the World Bank's project, which will involve the movement of some 60,000 Han Chinese into areas traditionally occupied by Tibetans, has the approval of the British Government? Will that project affect the human rights situation of the Tibetans in that area? If not, will the project go ahead?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are extremely aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the dam project. We still await the publication of the report of the independent inspection panel into the decision of the World Bank to approve the project and the World Bank's formal response to it. We shall then take a position on the project's future. However, I can assure the noble Lord that when that report is to hand, Her Majesty's Government will give their full attention to its recommendations and the comments contained in it. We shall respond in an appropriate and informed way once we have had an opportunity to consider its contents.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted that yesterday the UN Committee Against Torture expressed concern about the continuing allegations of torture, in particular against Tibetans and other minorities? Although the Chinese authorities stated that none of those allegations was fully substantiated, they did agree that the UN Committee Against Torture should pay a visit to China. Will the Government press for that visit to take place at the earliest possible moment and for it to include Tibet in the itinerary?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly we shall press for the Chinese authorities to live up to their commitment, as the noble Lord suggests. However, the committee must first accept the invitation. This is an important and welcome step by the Chinese authorities. We welcome China's engagement with UN mechanisms, including the UN Committee Against Torture. Furthermore, we have carefully noted the committee's oral conclusions which were issued, I believe, on 9th May. We shall address these, including the recommendation that China should incorporate a definition of torture into its domestic legislation in the context of our bilateral human rights dialogue. The incorporation of such a definition is also
1722
relevant to China's ratification of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is a high priority of the dialogue process.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, notwithstanding the answers that the Minister has given to the House, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that the government of the People's Republic of China really have any understanding at all of what we mean by human rights? If they do, what is the evidence for that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have been making very clear to the government of China what we mean by human rights. The dialogue in which we are engaging is extremely practical. Noble Lords will know that in the training programme I mentioned earlier well over 100 Chinese lawyers trained in this country under a government-funded practical training scheme for young lawyers. We have put in place a five-year programme to train six judges a year in the UK. That programme began in 1998–99. Furthermore, among other initiatives, we have set up a two-year training programme on the criminal process. We are trying to deepen the understanding of Chinese legal representatives so that they truly inwardly digest what we mean by human rights and so that our dialogue is both relevant and fully understood.

Local Elections: Pilot Schemes
3.24 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholmasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet made any assessment of the impact of voting experiments in the recent local elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 2000, responsibility for evaluating the recent electoral pilot schemes rests with the local authorities concerned. We have no wish to prejudge this process and we look forward to receiving their reports in due course. I am sure that, once it has been established, the electoral commission will be interested in studying the evaluation reports.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the substantial drop in the Labour vote in London and elsewhere, will the Government continue with their experiments because they appear to switch off Labour support? More seriously, in a democracy, should we not be encouraging people to visit their polling stations rather than using advance postal votes or other eccentric means which end up producing additional spoiled papers and even raise questions of fraud?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that widespread support was demonstrated in your Lordships' House for the principle of piloting different

1723
ways of putting one's cross on the ballot paper during the recent local elections. I think that we should study carefully the evaluation reports that will be returned by the local authorities. People appeared to have enjoyed having a flutter with experimentation in the recent elections. No doubt we shall learn much from this.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a matter that was touched on the other day, but I do not think that the Minister had an opportunity to reply. Why was erroneous advice given to voters in the election of the London mayor? It was stated quite plainly in the instructions to voters that the voter had to exercise a second choice. Who was responsible for that erroneous advice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that the responsibility for drawing up that advice lay with the Returning Officer for Greater London. If the noble Lord so wishes, we could make contact with the Returning Officer for Greater London and seek further elucidation from him.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the more unfortunate impacts of recent experiments has been a certain cooling-off in relationships between the new London mayor and the Government of the day? Would he agree that the governance of London might be better conducted if Mr Livingstone were to be welcomed back into the bosom of the Labour Party? When may we look forward to that happy event?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that that question must be interpreted as being rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government consider what should be done in future when only one-third of the electorate casts its vote but that results in one person securing more than 50 per cent of the votes?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this House has a great tradition of concerning itself over questions of turn-out in elections and is to be congratulated on that concern. However, precisely because of those concerns, the Government brought forward pilot schemes devised in conjunction with local government, to see whether other ways could be found to encourage people to cast their votes in local government elections. We all have our part to play and education is an important element of that exercise. There is much to learn and much to do.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the Minister given any thought to the reasons for the low polls in the recent elections? At one time it was believed that politicians were interested in the people, but now it appears that the people are expected to be more interested in politicians.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a very entertaining question. I suppose that, as a politician, I am rather pleased that people appear to be interested in politicians. However, perhaps they are more interested in some politicians than in others.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, was it not a brave experiment of the Government to attempt to run two Labour candidates in the mayoral election in London? Does the Minister think that that was a success? Referring back to the point made by the Minister earlier—that the House welcomed experimentation—does he recall that m fact the House was a little sceptical about the success of those experiments? Although the Minister may not have studied the statistics, I have. It is clear that the majority of the experiments made no impact at all. Is he aware that the only experiment that seems to have made an impact was all-postal voting? Is he convinced that the security of the postal voting system is sufficient to prevent quite widespread fraud were postal voting for everyone to be extended to all local government elections?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have looked at some of the initial findings on the turn-out question. The noble Lord is right. Where postal voting was conducted, there were considerable increases in turn-out. That is something on which we should reflect. It is encouraging.
There are various reasons for carrying out experiments. We shall need to study carefully the reports produced by the local authorities and try to get behind some of the reasons for low turn-outs where pilots were conducted.
I respect the noble Lord's comments on the question of fraud and abuse in postal votes. It is a concern that we all share. I was grateful to him for his support during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill, enabling us to close off any opportunities for fraud that existed. We shall continue to press on that issue.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there should be a proper, independent evaluation of the experimental voting systems in the recent local elections, preferably by the independent electoral commission, before the Home Secretary is able to roll them out for future elections.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we debated that issue at some length during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill, and it proved very valuable. We are expecting reports to come initially from local authorities. They may wish to find independent and academic researchers to look at the results of various pilots. I look forward and welcome the role that the electoral commission may well play in the future in evaluating pilots and making recommendations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Matters sub judice
3.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The sole purpose of the Motion is to give effect to a recommendation of the Procedure Committee. Your Lordships will remember that the House agreed the Procedure Committee's report on 19th April this year. This resolution, therefore, is a direct consequence of the House's pre-existing agreement to that report.
As long ago as December 1963 the House agreed that the practice governing Motions and Questions relating to matters which were sub judice should be similar in both Houses. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, endorsed that decision in 1999 on the basis that it was obviously desirable that each House should be in the same position. The Joint Committee noted that the practice was not the same in both Houses. The practice in your Lordships' House in fact restricts opportunities for debate to a greater extent than in another place. The Joint Committee therefore recommended that the two Houses should pass new resolutions to modernise existing practice and to harmonise the practice in both Houses.
The rule, of course, is not absolute. In the Commons it may be waived at the discretion of the Chair. In this House there is no general power of waiver, but since 1995 a limited power of discretionary waiver has been given to the Leader of this House. The Leader may exercise that limited power to permit discussion of matters relating to any ministerial decision and matters concerning issues of national importance like the economy, public order or the essentials of life. I repeat: that has been the position in this House since 1995. The Joint Committee recommended that a general discretion to waive the sub judice rule, comparable to that of the Speaker in the Commons, should be introduced in this House.
Perhaps I may make one or two further comments. It is proposed, in the new edition of the Companion to provide that any Member of this House proposing to refer to a matter which is sub judice must give the Leader at least 24 hours notice. Secondly, a decision by the Leader as to the exercise of her discretion will not be open to challenge. Obviously, the Leader does not act in a political or partisan capacity in those circumstances, but as guardian of the procedures of the whole House. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, subject to the discretion of the Leader of the House, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:
(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
1726
(a) (i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.
(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.
(b)(i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.
(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.
(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.
But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Leader of the House a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in Motions, debates or Questions.
(2) Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any Motion, debate or Question, from the time when the resolution of the House is passed, until the report is laid before the House.
(3) For the purposes of this resolution—
(a) Matters before coroners courts or fatal accident inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph 1(a); and
(b) "Question" includes a supplementary question.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assist me in one matter relating to paragraph (1)(b)(i) and civil proceedings. It is there provided that,
"Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing … have been made".
I take it that "civil proceedings" applies to the civil jury trial as well as to the non-jury trial. A civil jury trial would encompass defamation and malicious prosecution by way of example. Does the Minister see any difficulty in the sub judice rule applying so late that it is after arrangements have been made for trial in that type of case?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes; and in answer to the second question, I do not think so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we welcome this Motion because it makes common sense that the sub judice rule should be the same, as far as possible, in both Houses of Parliament. However, in the longer term are there not issues that we should look at again?

1727
Under the present rules, your Lordships' House will continue to be unable to discuss issues which the media are free to report on and discuss. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the media are guilty of contempt of court only if they publish statements which are intended to interfere with the course of justice or which create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. That is far less restrictive than the parliamentary sub judice rule. I wonder therefore whether we should look at the issue again in due course to consider whether the parliamentary rule should be relaxed and perhaps aligned with the contempt rule. It seems anomalous when we in your Lordships' House and our colleagues in another place cannot discuss issues which are being freely and lawfully discussed in the press. It is ironic that, when we have introduced a statutory right to freedom of speech under the Human Rights Act, we continue to be limiting our own freedom of speech in this way.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Of course, the media are in a different position to your Lordships' House. It is axiomatic that the world at large pays a good deal more attention to what we say than to anything that might appear in the vulgar press.
There is an underlying point in what the noble Lord says. I imagine your Lordships may well want to return to this matter after a trial period. Of course, the Liaison Committee met earlier this week and agreed the desirability of setting up a Joint Committee on Human Rights. If that Joint Committee is set up, that aspect of the noble Lord's question may be something it wishes to take on board and discuss.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are taking a valuable step to align procedure in this House with procedure in another place. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we may have to come back to this matter. If we do, it is important that we and another place come back to it together. To end up again in a situation in which there are two different sub judice rules depending upon which House one is in would not be sensible. I hope my noble and learned friend will keep that in mind.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Richard is absolutely right. In fact, not for the first time, if this resolution is passed today we shall be in advance of another place. But there is obvious sense in having the symmetry to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I too accept that it would be desirable to have the same procedure in both Houses. But given that there is no Speaker in this House and that the Leader of the House occupies a different position, obviously they cannot be identical.
1728
Can the Minister reassure me that the words,
"subject to the discretion of the Leader of the House".
mean only that the Leader of the House can give a waiver if he or she thought it desirable, but that it is not possible for the Leader of the House to exercise his or her discretion and judge something to be sub judice when the Clerks of the House take a different view? Will the noble and learned Lord also confirm that in extradition proceedings it will be possible for Members of this House, in between stages in a case, to question the Home Secretary's quasi-judicial position?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the question of waiver, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is quite right: that is intended as a further protection for the rights of this House; in other words, discussion would not be curtailed. In my own experience, the advice of the appropriate advisers is always taken by the Leader of the House. I believe that that has also been the experience of the noble Lord.
As to extradition, it seems to me that every issue of fact and of law would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I know that the noble Lord did have questions that he wanted to put in connection with a recent, fairly well-known extradition case and that there were occasions when he was not able to do so. Ultimately, of course, we had quite a lengthy debate which he instigated and which I believe was valuable to all of us.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this Motion obviously comes before your Lordships with potent backing from the Joint Select Committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls, backed by the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to raise some questions about it. I hope that they have percolated through to the noble and learned Lord I asked that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House should be given notice of them.
Last night your Lordships debated at length an impasse which we seemed to have reached by not taking note at the time of the constitutional implications for the privileges of the two Houses of the setting up by the Prime Minister of the Nolan Committee. I suggest that we should at least take notice of the implications involved in this Motion.
The sub judice rule is of course the complement of what we were discussing last night—the reverse of an obverse. The Houses claim privileges; that is to say, certain specific rules to enable them to carry out effectively their constitutional duties as Houses of Parliament. However, in the past that has led them into collision with courts of law, which were equally trying to carry out their constitutional duties to adjudicate on the rights of individuals seeking recourse to judicial remedies. The matter came to a crisis in the middle of the last century, as your Lordships will remember, in the famous case of Stockdale v Hansard, which ended most unfortunately with, on the one hand, the House of Commons committing the sheriffs of Middlesex, who were enforcing the decrees of the

1729
law courts and, on the other hand, the law courts committing the Officer of the Serjeant-at-Arms, who was carrying out the decrees of the House of Commons. It was such a scandal that, thereafter, both parties retreated from their extreme positions. Parliament recognised that the courts of law should proceed within their own jurisdiction by observing the sub judice rule, while the law courts agreed to respect the privileges of Parliament.
As was pointed out in previous interventions, it is obviously desirable that both Houses should operate in the same way as far as concerns sub judice discretion. But there has to be some inherent difference. As I read the structure of what is proposed, I see that sub judice applies generally under paragraph (1) of the Motion, "where proceedings are active". However,
"where a ministerial decision is in question",
and so on, the rule may be waived and that is subject, at the outset, to the unchallengeable discretion of the Leader of the House.
What led the Joint Select Committee into that mystery as to whether the Leader of the House was the right person was the fact that in the House of Commons the Speaker has, I think to general satisfaction, the power of waiving the sub judice rule. But the Speaker of the House of Commons is by no means in a similar position to the Leader of your Lordships' House. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not the Leader of the House; that is a political appointment. The Speaker of the Commons is elected by the whole body of electors. It was noticeable that the present Speaker, a woman, who has operated, I believe, to general admiration, was elected by a predominantly Tory House of Commons—that is, predominantly Tory and predominantly men. However, the Leader of your Lordships' House is not in the same position at all. She is in a similar position in many respects to the Leader of the House of Commons; in other words, it is a political appointment and she is a member of the Government, charged with seeing that the Government's business gets carried through the House. That is a vital difference.
The intention of this Motion is to give the noble Baroness an additional task, an additional loyalty; namely, as the vindicator of your Lordships' right to debate. That sort of hybrid quality is not unknown to our constitution. Ever since 1923, the Law Officers have recognised a dual loyalty. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will confess to his schizophrenia in that respect. But is it necessary to add to the schizophrenia of the Leader of the House? Would it not be preferable, instead of giving her an absolute and unchallengeable discretion, to leave the matter in the hands of your Lordships, with the Leader of the House providing guidance, as she does on so many other matters, but with the decision, the responsibility, remaining with the general body of your Lordships?
The matter is particularly accentuated by the terms of this Motion. I refer to the words,
"where a ministerial decision is in question".
1730
That raises the question of judicial challenge to a ministerial decision. Is it really desirable that your Lordships should debate and pre-empt, or the other place debate and pre-empt, the decision of the appropriate court of law? Is it not inherently objectionable that the Leader of the House, a Member of the Cabinet, should have to decide whether her colleagues' decision, which has been challenged in a court of law, should nevertheless be debated in Parliament in pre-emption to the decision of the court?
We should at least be alive to where we are going constitutionally. I therefore presume to lay those considerations before your Lordships.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I hesitate to become involved in an argument between two lawyers as eminent as those who are speaking at the present time. I take totally the important point which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has made on this issue.
However, those of us who have been at one or the other end of the building over the past 40 years or so will know that debates have taken place which were cringe-making in the extent to which they were clearly wrong in relation to proceedings which were before the courts. The provision—my noble and learned friend does not disagree with the broad provision—that we are discussing is, I believe, something which most, if not all, noble Lords would support.
The issue raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon is a real one. However, I suggest that it is one with which this House is already familiar. I consider that the position that is suggested for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House under the new provision is analogous to the position of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that he also is a Member of the Cabinet and a party Member. He is able to separate those two situations when dealing with matters where there is a potential conflict of interest.
In recent times the traditional dual role of the Leader of the House has been almost identical to the role we are discussing; namely, that of a party politician who at the same time is an Officer of the House as a whole and loyal to the House as a whole. In my limited experience I do not believe that that has normally been challenged and nor has it caused great problems. I believe that there is a need to qualify the provision we are discussing, but unless we decide to have a Speaker, which I personally would deeply regret, I believe that it could work perfectly well with the Leader of the House continuing to—I was about to say "wear two hats", but for ladies that would be offensive—act in those two capacities of being a party politician (we understand that totally) and being perfectly competent to undertake the responsibility I am discussing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate. My only qualification to do so is not a legal one but my position as Leader of the Opposition. I also had no intention of speaking in the debate because the Motion gives effect to a Motion which has already been agreed by this House on a

1731
Procedure Committee report, which gave effect to a decision made by the Joint Committee which has already been mentioned.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised the extremely important matter of the role of the Leader of the House, it is right that I should say a few words which are broadly in agreement with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Having said that, as this Motion is not time-critical, I am sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is not present to move it. I do not mean that comment to be at all offensive. I am simply sorry that the noble Baroness is not present to say that she understands her position to be that described by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, which is also my perception. If the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, says that that is the position, he will be putting words into her mouth. I rather regret that; I think it would be better if the noble Baroness had been able to say that herself.
The noble Baroness as Leader of the House has a dual role as a Cabinet Minister—she is also Minister for Women—and as the Leader of the Whole House. I believe, and certainly hope, that she has no difficulty in fulfilling that role.
On the matter of her discretion, I ask my next question purely for clarification. Am I right in thinking that she will seek advice from the Law Officers on this matter—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General himself, or, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? On matters of political importance, which perhaps concern a ministerial decision, or another body in which the Government have a role or responsibility, will the noble Baroness widen the consultation to take into account the views of the usual channels or of the Opposition? It would be useful to be given a view on that. If the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has difficulty in answering that question—I am sure that that is not the case and that he will have discussed the matter with the noble Baroness—I should be happy to receive a reply in writing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I hope that I may ask two simple questions which I think relate to this discussion. First, do the rules of the Commons include 24-hours' notice, as do these rules? Secondly, what happens if the Leader of the House takes a different decision from the Speaker? I ask this because, if I remember rightly, when the Pinochet case arose there was an attempt to raise the matter in this House and the House was told that it was sub judice. On that same day the Commons discussed it. I may be wrong but I think that is what happened. I wonder whether the two decisions could diverge and, if so, what happens?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the 24-hour matter I have a small, practical question to ask as regards exactly how strictly that will be interpreted. If it is strictly interpreted, a question could not be raised after three
1732
o'clock on a Wednesday in a normal working week until the following Monday. That gives a 92-hour blanket of silence. As matters of public order are specifically listed, and public order is most imperilled, as a rule, at weekends, that may be a relevant consideration.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the present rule requires the 24-hour notice to be given in respect of a much more limited discretion. Of course the 24-hour notice question is proposed to be included in the new edition of the Companion. I dare say that there will be an opportunity for the question to be raised on that occasion.
I return to the matter on which I tried to be helpful when the debate began. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out a moment ago, the House has already made the decision we are discussing. What move today simply concerns the means whereby the decision, which has already been assented to, may be put into effect.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised some questions whi.ch are plainly of importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out. But all these issues are very fully ventilated and debated, should your Lordships wish to see them, in volume 1 of the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which of course your Lordships regard with a good deal of respect. It was printed on 30th March this year and in it your Lordships can see the whole of the debate referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
The Joint Committee concluded in paragraph 201 that, bearing in mind a degree of difference between the Speaker in the Commons and the Leader of the House here, the Leader of the House,
"would therefore probably be the appropriate person to exercise such a general power of waiver".
It is a very full, comprehensive document, and I shall not weary your Lordships with any further citation from it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the report of the Joint Select Committee is an eminent constitutional document to which we should pay tribute. But I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that it did not address the specific question which I ventured to raise before your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, all the relevant issues were fully debated and discussed by the committee, which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. The next step—I shall be as brief as possible, bearing in mind that we have other important business—was that on 4th April this year the Select Committee on Procedure discussed the issue. Present were the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Lord Henley, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, my noble friend the Leader of the House and myself. The Select Committee came to its decision. It made its recommendations to this House, and this

1733
House has already approved them. I repeat: I am simply moving today the mechanical device for giving effect to something that has already received assent.
The noble Baroness asked about the possibility of a difference of view between the Speaker and the Leader of the House. The possibility of a difference or divergence of view already exists. I stress: we are widening the opportunity for this House to discuss matters so that it is coterminous with the opportunities in another place for discussing similar topics.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether advice would be taken from the Clerks in cases of difficulty. That is the convention. The question of whether the Leader of the House would consult colleagues was raised. That is a matter for the Leader of the House on any particular occasion. If I may say so, there is a perfect analogy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the position that I hold at the moment. He will know as well as I that, on occasions, an Attorney-General is entitled to seek the views of colleagues, but it is within his discretion as to whether he takes their views—and it is absolutely within his discretion as to whether he acts upon them. It is the Shawcross doctrine that in many circumstances an attorney will not wish to take the view of his colleagues but in many circumstances he would be a fool not to do so. That is quite blunt language.
I stress that all the issues have been gone into at great length and with great thoroughness, if I may respectfully say so, by the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls. I think I have answered all the questions that have been raised.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, there is still the question of whether the Speaker requires 24 hours notice.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Speaker requires notice. Whether or not it is 24 hours, I do not know. I shall certainly make inquiries. I repeat: that is the present practice in this House. Nothing further is being introduced.
Perhaps I may make one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly said that the Leader of the House has a number of obligations. So, of course, does he. On all these occasions we try to put our duties as servants of the House before any short-term partisan advantage. In the short time that I have been here—which is a favourite phrase for lawyers—I have never encountered, on any occasion, any decision made by any Leader of the House, of whatever political complexion, that suggested that their independence and regard for this House was in any way being impeached.
Lord Renton: My Lords, during his very full contribution the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the possibility of the Lord Chancellor having responsibility in this matter. Admittedly, the Lord Chancellor's duties are not strictly analogous with those of the Speaker of the
1734
House of Commons, but the Lord Chancellor has—I have mentioned this on several occasions—the unusual opportunity within our constitution of helping to co-ordinate the legislative, judicial and executive responsibilities of Parliament and of the Government. Would it not be a good solution if, instead of the Speaker having this responsibility, the duty fell upon the Lord Chancellor?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I do not know whether I should ask my question now or wait until the noble and learned Lord has responded to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Let us assume that "Lady Jayclyde" or "Lord Cranby" are Leaders of the House. It seems to me that if this privilege is given to them—and to them alone—we will be reducing the powers of Parliament as a whole. This is a tendency which has gone on too long and too much. That is not a criticism on this issue of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde or the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. If one takes power from the House and gives it to an individual, that will reduce the power of the House and increase the power of the executive. That is something that all Houses of Parliament allow at their peril.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as a final comment before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I venture to correct an inadvertent slip on his part? If I heard him aright, he said that the report of the Joint Select Committee was printed on 30th March of this year. It was of course printed on 30th March of last year. As a member of that committee I take an interest in this matter. At the rate of progress we are now making, it seems to me that all our recommendations will finally be considered some 52 years hence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord said "a final comment". I therefore sail forward with every confidence that we are drawing to a conclusion.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is mistaken. The Leader of the House presently has the discretion of which he speaks. The discretion vested—and which will remain vested—in the Leader of the House is to extend the privileges of your Lordships to discuss matters, not to limit them.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of whether or not it should be the Lord Chancellor who had this duty. I make two short points in regard to that. First, this matter was fully considered by the committee at paragraphs 200 and 201. As I said earlier, it came to the conclusion that the appropriate person, probably, was the Leader of the House. I have not had the opportunity to consult the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but one has to bear in mind that he is at the apex of the judicial pyramid. When one is talking about questions of sub judice, I respectfully suggest that it seems more appropriate that the Leader of the House should have the discretion. To paraphrase one or two words I heard yesterday, it has worked very well in the past; there is no reason why it should not work well in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
4.9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of the Electoral Commission]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert (", one of whom shall be ordinarily resident in Scotland").
The noble Lord said: The electoral commission will have a very important role to play in the political life of our country. That role will not just encompass elections to the House of Commons or elections to the European Parliament: it will also encompass elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly; and it will encompass referendums, or referenda, depending on your preference.
Later on in the Bill we will address the question of the role of the electoral commission in Scottish local government, which I think is the subject of a series of government amendments. Without doubt the electoral commission will have an important role to play in the United Kingdom. I am selecting Scotland here because the powers of the Scottish Parliament are far greater than the powers of the other two devolved bodies set up by government. The powers of that Parliament to make electoral law for local government are different from those which the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies will have.
The Neill report, on which the majority of the Bill is based, said about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the summary paragraph 12 on page 3:
"We have been particularly conscious of the significant changes in political arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Throughout this report we have constantly considered whether special arrangements are needed to meet these differences. Our view is that these differences can best be met by appropriate modifications of our main recommendations".
I assume from the report that there will be one electoral commission for the United Kingdom. It will not be necessary to have an electoral commission set up for Scotland to look after local government and so on. I hope that that is what the later government amendments actually mean. That is my reading of what the Neill report says. Interestingly, summary paragraph 13 says:
"The Election Commission should maintain offices in each of these parts of the United Kingdom. Our aim in proposing this is to ensure that the new electoral arrangements in these areas are fully monitored and any changes required in the system are taken into account by the Commission as a whole".
1736
I might not have tabled this amendment had it not been for events in your Lordships' House last Thursday when the Leader of the House answered a Question from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde about the Appointments Commission which is to be set up. As your Lordship will recall, the chairman of the Appointments Commission is the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. It was clear that of the three non-political members—if I may call them that—one comes from Wales and one from Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Renton then asked about Scotland. He said:
"I did not hear the names of anyone who could be identified in that way".
The noble Baroness said that she would place biographical details in the Library. She continued:
"However, all three places to which the noble Lord refers are represented. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is a Scot".—[Official Report, 4/5/00; col. 1132.]
That came as a surprise to almost all the Scots in the Chamber. Indeed the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, who for years and years was secretary of the Scottish Peers Association asked the noble Baroness if the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, lives in Scotland. The noble Baroness did not answer that but said, at col. 1134:
"I believe that he would be distressed not to be described as a Scot".
I have to say that I have yet to be convinced that the noble Lord would be considered by Scots as a Scot. I went to the Library to get the biographical details. I looked at Who's Who. The only indication I could see was that he went to a public school in Scotland. That does not actually point to the fact that he is a Scot. The entry did not say anything about where he lives. Clearly, his title indicates Suffolk, which is not one of the counties of Scotland. There was no address in Scotland in Who's Who.
I asked for the biographical details which the noble Baroness said last Thursday she would place in the Library. I discovered that the biographical details had not been placed in the Library, so I was no further forward. However, I have made some progress. My noble friend Lord Northesk looked up the Downing Street website and pulled off the CVs of the members of the commission. They were no help at all, being more limited than the information in Who's Who. I therefore decided to put down this amendment.
I may be absolutely wrong. I have no reason to doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is a perfectly worthy chairman, but I do not think that the Government can justifiably claim that he is a Scot who represents or is aware of political developments and what goes on in Scotland. If we are to keep this kingdom together—we shall be coming to amendment after amendment about Northern Ireland, all of which suggests to me that the Government are intent on dividing the kingdom, one island from the other—then we have to be mindful of the very different position which the Government have created in Scotland. There is need for a Scot on these United Kingdom

1737
bodies who is clearly seen to be a Scot by other Scots. That would be achieved if he was ordinarily resident in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has made what I regard as an unanswerable case for a specific Scottish commissioner. There is a very strong case for a commissioner ordinarily in residence. There is a very strong case because we could draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. I might be tempted to go into that in referring very briefly to the reason why Northern Ireland should have a resident representative.
Living four days a week in London, as I do, I frequently come across people who introduce themselves as Ulstermen. They explain that they are members of very laudable professions. They ask about the old country and their questions reveal to me that they know absolutely nothing about political affairs, electoral matters or general public opinion. I ask how long it is since they visited Ireland. They reply, "I think I was there in the 1950s".
It would be unfair for a commissioner, even if he had Northern Irish origins, to be placed in the position within the context of his fellow commissioners of giving a view and a snap judgment on something dealing specifically with elections in Northern Ireland. It can be baffling enough for those of us who live there, even more so for those who do not.
I use that point to reinforce the case made by the noble Lord in moving his amendment. It is one thing to have someone allegedly belonging to or having been born in a given part of the United Kingdom before moving permanently to another. It is quite another to expect them to commit themselves to giving specific answers which may have a legal and binding effect on the report of the commission. It has to be recognised that what one is creating is what I can only regard as a super-quango, the like of which is difficult to find even in less important aspects of national life.
The Bill specifically states that members of the commission,
"shall be appointed by Her Majesty".
Her Majesty will act on the advice of her Ministers. But the crucial question is: who advises the Ministers in these delicate matters? I offer another analogy of which noble Lords will be very well aware. Will Price Waterhouse be once again invited to "head hunt" and come up with members of the board of Tesco or Barclays or someone of that kind? Will they have any practical experience of that with which they are asked to deal? In the context of the dreadful word -transparency", will the emphasis be on quotas of various segments of society in the United Kingdom regardless of their knowledge of electoral matters and traditions going back more than 700 years, or will they be confined to reading what appears in The Times or in the Sun, which appears to have changed its attitude? Will they be bereft of any practical experience in the delicate matters with which those of us who, God help
1738
us, have submitted ourselves to the electorate time after time and therefore know what it is like to be at the coalface will be familiar?
I am not suggesting that we should be selected. I am simply saying that it would be unfair to people to be plucked out of obscurity, worthy persons though they might be but with no practical knowledge of electoral matters. If in reply to my point about the lack of wisdom of appointing commissioners simply because of their background in relation to segments of the population the Government say that appointing a territorial representative from Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland would be disproportionate and make the body disproportionate, the remedy resides in a later amendment to increase the total number of members of the commission.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I, too, was going to draw attention to what happened last Thursday. A commission has been appointed to look for Cross Bench Peers but there is no one there who lives in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who is a distinguished person, lives in Suffolk. It is not easy to know who is who in Scotland when you live somewhere else.
The commission proposed in the Bill will have to deal with some very sensitive issues indeed. It will deal with political parties. There are political parties which exist only in Scotland as there are political parties which exist only in Northern Ireland or only in Wales. There is a very sensitive issue in relation to the Scots Parliament in that under the boundary committee duties proposed in the Bill the commission will have the indirect effect under the Scotland Act of deciding how many Members of the Scots Parliament there will be. To give that duty to someone who is not present in Scotland would be the greatest possible mistake.
I am not suggesting, and the amendment does not suggest, that the person should represent Scotland, but he or she would be a member of the commission who is in Scotland, understands Scotland, knows what is going on there and is trusted to do the job by the Scots Parliament and by the people of Scotland. It would be very wise of the Government to look hard at this amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: One of the most enjoyable experiences that I have had in this House is the number of occasions on which I have found myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Mackay. However, on this occasion I really must dissent from him. I hope that his feelings are not too hurt by my apostasy. The noble Lord seemed to be suggesting that in some way you could cease to be a Scotsman by living in England. The noble Lord shakes his head. None the less, that is the impression that is left in my sensitive soul.
As many noble Lords will know, I have lived in London for approaching 50 years. I do regard myself as a Scotsman and I think that most noble Lords regard me as such. As proof of that, I remember once remarking to the House that three of my children

1739
who were born in London were born at University College Hospital, which was as near as my wife could get to St Pancras Station, from where the train left for Kilmarnock. The other child was born at the Whittington Hospital in Archway. He came back from school one day and said that since he was born in London he must be an Englishman. His three siblings very briskly remarked, "No you're not. You're a Scotsman because your blood is pure". Much as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, much as I agree with him and much as I should like to agree with him, which I often do, I must dissent from him on this occasion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have found this, as ever when a debate is led by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, an interesting, charming and witty discussion. However, I do not see the case for requiring one member of the commission to be ordinarily resident in Scotland. The electoral commission will be a UK-wide body. I do not see why it should be the case that Scotland should be singled out in any particular way or for particular and special treatment.
What we want to do is to bring forward candidates who are the best people for the job and who between them have an understanding of electoral and political matters across the United Kingdom. The commission will be a collective decision-making body discharging its functions across the country as a whole. It most certainly will not be a collection of commissioners, each of whom are individually responsible for a particular part of the United Kingdom. Given that approach, it is our view that we should avoid being unnecessarily prescriptive about who may be appointed. It may be that there are two or three outstanding candidates who are ordinarily resident in Scotland. If so, the question has to be asked: why should not all of them be appointed or certainly considered for appointment? Under the noble Lord's amendment we would be forced to choose only one of them.
When we come to appoint the additional commissioners to chair the four boundary committees, different considerations will need to apply in those circumstances. What we will be looking for there are people who have relevant experience, perhaps of local government, in a particular part of the United Kingdom. It is likely, therefore, that the chairman of the Scottish boundary committee will be someone who currently lives in Scotland or has recently lived and worked in Scotland. But I suggest that we can sensibly leave that consideration to the selection criteria rather than write it on the face of the Bill. With those, I hope, encouraging closing comments, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister, although, to be honest, he has not made a very good start to this Committee stage. Perhaps I should start by saying how much I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, cannot agree with me on this occasion. I fully accept that he is clearly a Scot. My
1740
goodness, after 50 years of living in London his accent has been untainted by this great city. That is certainly to his credit.
But much as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, living as he has in London for 50 years, I would not expect him to have a detailed knowledge of what exactly is going on in Scotland day-by-day with the new arrangements for elections and the comings and goings of the Scottish Parliament. They are heavily reported in the Scottish press; in fact, to the almost total exclusion of Westminster, something that annoys the Members of Parliament from Scotland in the other place. Occasionally, they break into the national newspapers; for example, Section 28 or—I am going to say it—my friend Donald Dewar's heart operation, from which, I am pleased to say, he is making a steady recovery, although it is early days. That certainly made the national press. All the comings and goings and the differences in elections are not common currency in England.
I suggest that, if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House decided last week that the appointments commission ought to have a person who, it is clear from her CV, comes from Northern Ireland, and another who clearly comes from Wales, and then felt obliged to suggest that the Scot should be the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—who, as one of my noble friends said, is more English than he is: and he is pretty English—obviously the argument in favour of having some representation around the United Kingdom has been made and has been accepted by the Government.
I attempted to put forward this argument when we discussed the composition of the Monetary Policy Committee. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Paul, is in his place. The noble Lord will remember that I did not even ask for a Scot—anyone from north of Ox ford would have done, or anyone who came from the Midlands, although we might not have quite the same activities. I was not nominating the noble Lord, Lord Paul, himself, but that would not be a bad idea. I do not see why his views on these matters should not be heard. The whole object of my argument was that the industrial parts of the United Kingdom were totally without a voice on the Monetary Policy Committee. Frankly, that is now showing very severely: the manufacturing sector, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, is suffering greatly. I do not know whether anything can be done about it, but the manufacturing sector might have a little more confidence, even if the academic appointed to the committee were from a university based in one of the industrial parts of the country.
We have had these arguments before. It is interesting that the Monetary Policy Committee and, in this case, the Government have not thought such a provision necessary, whereas in regard to the appointments commission they did think it necessary, although in one case there was some pretence.

1741
We need to have at least one person who is ordinarily resident in Scotland on the commission. It will have an important role to play in these matters. Indeed, I suspect that when we come to debate amendments relating to Northern Ireland, we shall need to consider carefully whether there should be an appointee who is ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, given the huge and dramatic changes the Government are making to the Bill.
I am not satisfied and, frankly, I do not want to carry this matter on to the Report stage. I want to see the Government vote against the interests of Scotland. Therefore, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Luke,L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackieof Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Montrose, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Buscombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Naseby, L.

Caithness, E.

Northbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carver, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Courtown, E, [Teller]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crathome, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elles, B.

Elliott of Morpeth.L.

Rogan, L.

Elton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Erroll, E.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers. E.

Selbome, E.

Flather, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fookes. B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes. B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Geddes, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hanham, B

Tenby.V.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgame, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Jopling, L.

Waddington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wakeham. L.

Laird. L.

Weatherill, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Young. B.

1742

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Ahmed, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Alderdice, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Alii, L.

Levy, L.

Amos, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Ampthill, L.

Lipsey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Longford, E.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bach, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston. L.

Barker, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Bassam of Brighton. L.

Bath and Wells. Bp.

Mclntosh of Hudnall. B.

Berkeley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Billingham, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Borrie, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Bragg, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brennan, L.

Methuen, L.

Brett, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer. B

Brooke of Alverthorpe. L.

Molloy. L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Burlison, L.

Morris of Manchester. L.

Carter, L.[Telkr]

Murray of Epping Forest. L.

Chandos, V.

Newby, L.

Christopher, L.

Nicoi, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Paul, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe. L.

Peston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Pitkeathley. B.

Crawley, B.

Plant of Highficld.L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai,L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dholakia, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Diamond, L.

Razzall, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea.L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale. L.

Elder. L.

Rennard, L

Evans of Parkside. L.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falconer of Thoroton. L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville. L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sawyer, L.

Filkin, L.

Scrota. B.

ritt, L.

Sham of Guildford B

Gale, B.

Shore of Stepney. L.

Geraint L

Simon. V.

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Clifton. L.

Goodhart, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gould of Potternewton. B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath L

Greaves, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thornton, B.

Harrison, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hollisof Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Uddin, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hoyle, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitaker, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

Jacobs, L.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Mostyn. L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord Privy Seal)

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("five") and insert ("eight").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 27, 28 and 51. When I first tabled this amendment I wanted to debate two aspects of the commission: first, the kind of people who might be appointed commissioners or, perhaps more appropriately, those who might not; and, secondly, the chairmanship of the Boundary Commissions for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It so happens that the Government have now tabled a raft of amendments to deal with the qualification of commissioners and, therefore, I can leave that matter until the Committee comes to government Amendment No. 5.
I should like to hear the views of the Minister on the relationship between the Boundary Commissions and the electoral commission. This is one area in which the Government have decided not to follow the recommendation of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. As to the Boundary Commissions, on page 154 of the report of the committee one sees:
"11.27 It was suggested to us in evidence that the Election Commission should, among other things, assume the responsibilities of the present Boundary Commissions. This proposal falls outside our terms of reference, and we have neither taken evidence bearing on the point nor considered it in detail. We would only offer the thought that the existing system for the revision of parliamentary boundaries seems to work reasonably well and that to transfer it to the Election Commission might seriously overload that body, whose responsibilities, it seems to us, will be onerous enough as it is. We are not inclined to recommend change".
I freely concede that the committee did not take a firm position on the matter. As the report makes clear, the committee had not taken evidence on the issue. However, having given it a little thought, that was the conclusion at which it arrived. The Government have decided that the Boundary Commissions should transfer, so to speak, to the electoral commission.
The question arises: who on the electoral commission will sit on the Boundary Commissions for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? That question is addressed by my Amendments Nos. 27 and 51. Amendment No. 51 makes clear that the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should continue to be chaired by judges. I have only one reservation as to that. Occasionally, the chairmen of Boundary Commissions have not quite managed to get the constituencies in far better numerical balance. I have been over this matter before. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, smiles because she has heard the same speech before. I promise that I shall not make that speech again, other than to say that I live in hope that one day it will be realised that in our first-past-the-post electoral system it is quite important to achieve, as near as possible, parity one constituency with another.
1744
I accept that there are a few areas where, for sensible geographical reasons, that is not possible, but by and large it should be done. One of the reasons that people complain that election results show a mismatch with the total vote is the disparity between seats. Although that is not the only reason, it is a contributory factor. I simply put in a little plug in the hope that the judges appointed in future will at least be qualified in higher mathematics, or something of that nature, so that they take into account that important point. I still believe it is important that the appointee should be someone who is trained to be as obviously neutral as a judge. That is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 27 and 51. I appreciated that if I made it compulsory to have judges as commissioners in order that they could chair the Boundary Commissions, the five appointments as proposed by Neill, and the five to eight as proposed by the Government, would not be enough. For that reason I have proposed an increase in the minimum and maximum size of commission to accommodate Amendments Nos. 27 and 51. In Amendment No. 27 at least four members of the commission are to he drawn from categories a little wider than just judges. I have lighted upon the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life as part of the pool from which at least four members of the commission should be drawn.
My principal objective is to ask the Government why they decided not to follow the Neill recommendation, albeit a mild one, and give this responsibility to the electoral commission. I should also like to hear how the Government intend to deal with the interrelationship between the members of the commission and the chairmen of the Boundary Commissions. Are they to be deputy commissioners or full commissioners? Is the deputy commissioner the way to get round the problem? I am not sure I agree that that is the best solution. I believe that it is better if the chairmen of these important commissions are members of the electoral commission itself. Those are the main reasons for tabling the amendments.
It is important that we properly understand the Bill and know exactly what is happening with regard to the Boundary Commissions. I believe I am right in saying that the Bill contains a rather relaxed timetable when it comes to giving the electoral corn mission responsibility for boundary matters. If I am right, the next Boundary Commission round, which will take place within the next Parliament, will not be caught by the provisions of the Bill. The Boundary Commission of the next Parliament will be self-standing. It will not be involved with the electoral commission. I may have got that wrong. I shall he happy if I can have the Government's advice on that.
If I am right, can the Government explain why this arrangement will not be started immediately after the Bill is enacted? Why will not the Boundary Commissions to the next Parliament be subsumed into the procedures provided in the Bill? Why shall we have to wait perhaps another 12 or 15 years, depending on the length of Parliaments, before the arrangements come into place?

1745
I hope that I shall receive satisfactory answers so that I shall not have to bother the Committee to divide again within the next half hour. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes: I speak to Amendment No. 28 in this grouping. It is on the same lines as the amendment suggested by my noble friend although a simpler one. It relates to the chairmanship of the commission; namely, that the chairman should either be a member of the senior judiciary or a retired member. This is along the lines suggested by my noble friend for chairmanship. I can do no better than refer to comments made by the Lord Chancellor earlier today in answer to a Question. He gave a most eloquent exposition of why judges were so suited to head inquiries or commissions of an important nature. This stems from their legal training in impartiality and the ability to sift evidence. It seems to me that all he said today could be applied equally to the chairmanship of the commission. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be minded to accept this amendment, or a similar provision, in view of the great endorsement given by the Lord Chancellor.
I welcome my noble friend's suggestions that the size of the commission should be increased on the lines he suggested and for the reasons he gave.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, a couple of specific questions. First, he makes the point about increasing the size of the commission to 11; and under Amendment No. 27 we have some criteria. Does the noble Lord believe that the size should be increased irrespective of those criteria? Does he argue that the size should be increased because of the large volume of work that the commission will undertake? Alternatively, is he increasing the size because he believes that these people should he added to the commission?
Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that all electoral matters would benefit from coming under one commission? Have not local government and parliamentary boundaries been something of a farce? They have overlapped, causing problems. Is there not an argument for putting the Boundary Commission into the electoral commission? Given the volume of work for the commission, is it not sensible first to sort out such matters as the finances and donations and let the commission become established before we bring the Boundary Commission into play?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In principle I support Amendments Nos. 27 and 51, and in particular Amendment No. 28.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will be good enough to deal with the principle. For example, Amendment No. 27 could provide for three rather than four members, and that the Lords Justices of Appeal and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary could be retired. For practical purposes that could be a relevant consideration. Also, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public
1746
Life could be excluded from the list. I do not put that forward in a spirit of criticism of my noble friend's amendment but to ask whether the judicial element referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e), whether serving or retired, is acceptable in principle. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that question in due course.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may find that it is far more significant than he realises. I think that what I am about to say will shock and stagger all Members of the Committee.
It was generally believed that the Speaker of the House of Commons chaired all four Boundary Commissions. In all parts of the United Kingdom, some of that work was delegated, naturally, to a distinguished judge. However, there was a most astonishing development almost at the end of the last Boundary Commission in regard to Northern Ireland. I speak about the Boundary Commission for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The commission produced a report which was widely acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland—both sides of the so-called community. There came the most astonishing development. I know that the Committee will find it difficult to believe. The Irish Government asked for and obtained a copy. They made representations not to the Speaker of the House of Commons but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland saying, "This will not do. We have an alternative." The alternative, as they saw it, was to give an advantage to the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. I do not quarrel with that. They have been given a right and an opportunity on many occasions to represent that community. That is not the point.
The Northern Ireland Office immediately turned tail, directed the Boundary Commission—the so-called impartial, neutral commission—to go back to the drawing board and recast the plan for constituencies in Northern Ireland. In doing so, they made the unfortunate mistake of shooting themselves in the foot. They caused the loss of the SDLP nationalist moderate Dr Joseph Hendron who represented in another place the West Belfast constituency. As a result of this bungling and interference by a foreign government, he was replaced by one Mr Adams, who is now the Member of Parliament for Belfast West.
I know that noble Lords will find it difficult to accept that it was not the Boundary Commission which turned tail and changed its mind; it was directed and influenced to do so by the Northern Ireland Office to comply with the wishes of a foreign sovereign government. That raises this question in future. If any other European Union government decides that the output of the new commission is not to their liking, will they, too, be granted the same facilities by a department in Her Majesty's Government to do what they did in the case of Belfast—and in particular West Belfast?

1747
I say with great respect that we have to take the amendment very seriously. We have to ensure that all future boundary commissions are what they are said to be: that they operate, and operate solely, under the authority of the appropriate officers of government responsible to both House of this Parliament. They have to be insulated and protected from outside interference by any foreign sovereign government, particularly as, in the example I gave, they do not understand what they are doing and they disadvantage the very people whom they are trying to help.
5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I begin by declaring an interest. I am, and was when the report was declared, a member of the Neill committee. I therefore believe that it is inappropriate for me to speak or vote in any way which is inconsistent with the report which I signed. However, subject to that qualification, I regard myself as free to speak and vote on these issues.
I am unhappy with Amendment No. 27. I have been a practising barrister for some 40 years and as a result my regard for the judiciary is great but not unlimited. I believe that members of the electoral commission need a wide variety of experiences and expertise.
The effect of Amendment No. 27, even with the increased numbers proposed in the earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would be that between 36 and 50 per cent of the membership of the commission would have to be members of the judiciary. I do not believe that that constitutes a commission which would be appropriate for the job it has to do.
I have no objection to Amendment No. 28 because there is a strong case for saying that a senior or retired member of the judiciary should be a chairman of the commission, as is de facto the case with the Boundary Commission in which the chairmanship is purely nominal. However, the minimum number of four is inappropriate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may deal with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not suggest that I have an unreasoned admiration for the judiciary. That is not the point; the point was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. However one regards the judiciary, it is a bastion against that form of disposal. I had not known of that until the noble Lord mentioned it and I am deeply shocked. It is important that the judicial element, however one, as a member of the Bar, may regard it, is seen by the public, and as they would operate in public office, free from any form of pressure.
It is crucial that it should be retained in some form, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Mackay in Amendment No. 27. Therefore, I do not agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I now feel duty bound to declare an interest. I am not a lawyer, but I live with a lawyer. Therefore, my views of lawyers must be carefully phrased. I live in reverence of them and have great respect for them.
1748
I turn to the issues raised in this short but enlightening debate. The first point that we must remember is that the electoral commission is a regulatory body. It discharges functions which are vital to it and it must be seen as independent and impartial in its dealings with the supervisory organisations; that is, the political parties. The key criterion for membership of the commission is that it is composed of persons of proven independence and impartiality.
I can see why Members of the your Lordships' House, particularly with its strong judicial element, would be drawn to conclude that that must mean that many such people are involved in the business of the new commission. However, I take to heart the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we need to have commissioners of wide experience. That is an important point for reflection. Later we shall no doubt debate the association between the commission and membership of political parties. We have made our views clear on that.
I want to draw on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, about the commission. He was trying to tease us out on the nature of its composition and whether we believed there was a case for going against part of what the Neill committee stated, although not strongly; that is, the need to bring greater co-ordination between the four separate parliamentary Boundary Commissions.
That argument was well made by the Jenkins commission and we are reflecting on its views in order to try to bring together those organisations under one umbrella. We want to bring that work to bear more closely on the regulatory role that the electoral commission will be taking on. That is part of the thinking behind this particular move.
There is no doubt that members of the judiciary have served us well in their work on the Boundary Commission. I do not believe that anyone is arguing against that. No doubt, when we consider further the composition of the expanded commission, as it will he when we bring in the Boundary Commission functions, those people will be in the Forefront of our minds in considering who may be selected to carry out this important work.
At this stage, we do not say that they should be the sole beneficiaries of that part of the commission's work because we do not want to rule out anyone at this stage. We believe that it is best to keep an open mind. However, they will clearly have a leading and important role to play and will be active in our consideration when the criteria are drawn up.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked why not immediately give boundary matters to the electoral commission. It was a fair question to ask at t his stage. We must look at practicalities and we believe that it would be impractical to do that. After all, the work of the Boundary Commission is ongoing. It is into its fifth general review and we do not want to disrupt its important work. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point.

1749
He also made the point that this position could go on for ever. We do not want that to be the case and we believe that we are likely to see the transfer of the Boundary Commission's functions to the electoral commission within the next five years, when its work on the current fifth review is complete.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made an important and valuable point about avoiding outside interference. It is important that when we reflect on who will be on the commission we ensure and protect it from that interference. Furthermore, important comments were made about the value of retired judges and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, prayed in aid comments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor earlier today. We do not rule them out, but we need to have a broadly based commission. That is the kernel of our argument. I am confident that we will have an appointments process that is transparent and non-partisan and which can draw on a wide field of candidates.
I trust that with those comments, which may have been helpful in responding to the points raised, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jopling: I listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to the speeches made in support of the amendments. However, apart from telling us that he did not like them he has not gone far in explaining why. Putting the other way round the figures given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and even if these amendments were accepted, that would mean that there would still be between 50 per cent and 64 per cent of members of the commission who would not be either current or retired members of the judiciary.
I would like to hear from the Minister what other areas of independence he would approach in order to find the majority of the members of the commission. When one considers those independent people of whom he spoke, one's mind naturally moves first to the judiciary. I have always felt that judges were the most impartial group of people in the land. However, that belief has been significantly shattered by the behaviour of some of the senior judges in the past few years, but I shall not dwell on that. Even so, and despite those actions, I believe that judges still comprise the most reliable group that one could look to.
I want to hear from the Minister what other groups he is of a mind to approach. He cannot just brush aside these amendments and say that we should be looking for sensible, independent people. At this stage of the consideration of the Bill, he must give us a better idea whom he would consider. I did not hear the Minister deal with Amendment No. 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Fookes. I did not hear him apply himself to the point which had support from others in the Committee that the chairman of the commission should be drawn from the senior judiciary. I apologise if I did not hear the Minister say that, but I do not believe that he dealt with the point. It is a very
1750
important one because without question the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Fookes ought to be accepted, even if nothing else is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: When answering my noble friend Lord Jopling whose observations I wholly accept, and Amendment No. 28, which is distinct, can the Minister deal with the question that I put to him as to what objection he has as a matter of principle, leaving aside numbers, this and that, and odd amendments, to Amendment No. 27—subsection (7)(a)(b)(c) and (d)—if they are serving or retired members of the judiciary? The noble Lord ought to answer these questions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister replies can he tell us a little more about how the Government view the Boundary Commissions being linked to the electoral commission? I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench tabled these amendments specifically with a view to discovering what the Government intend to do about that. The noble Lord said that at some time the responsibility of the Boundary Commission would be moved. In setting up the commission, it is important to know government thinking on that matter. It relates very much to these amendments. In answering, perhaps the Minister can tell us a little more.
Baroness Fookes: I was extremely disappointed about the dismissive way in which the Minister dealt, or rather failed to deal, with my amendment. If I was still teaching and had such an answer from a pupil, I would probably have written, "Inadequate: must give reasons". The most that I was told was that the Government would not rule out a senior member of the judiciary being chairman of the commission. As I say, that is wholly inadequate. If the Minister does not share the admiration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to the worth of senior members of the judiciary in chairing such commissions, perhaps he would be kind enough to say so very firmly and give his reasons.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the Minister answers my noble friend's points, perhaps I may add two or three of my own. First, I shall answer some of the points that were put to me. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked me whether I was increasing the size in order to accommodate these appointments. That is what I was doing. I entirely agree with her about the overlap between the local government boundary commission and the parliamentary Boundary Commission. We should think about addressing that matter in this Bill. It has always seemed quite crazy that the local government boundary commission can go off on its merry way thinking in terms of local government numbers when along comes the parliamentary Boundary Commission and binds itself to the lines drawn on the map by the local government boundary commission.

1751
That is often why neighbouring constituencies that are similar in many ways are of quite different sizes in terms of electoral numbers. The constituency of Ayr in Scotland, where from a Conservative Party point of view there was a highly successful by-election, is pretty small because of having to obey local government rules. As regards the adjacent constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, represented by Mr George Foulkes, not in my wildest dreams would I think that the Conservative Party might win a by-election there, but that is beside the point. The point is that it is a large constituency geographically.
Because of the Boundary Commission's devotion to local government boundaries, the small constituency had the smaller electorate and the large geographical constituency had a very much larger electorate. I agree with the noble Baroness on this. It may be that this is a matter on which she and I should get together to see whether we can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—she might have more success than I have had—to look at this issue seriously.
I heard what the noble Baroness said about that workload that that would impose on the Boundary Commission if it was given such a responsibility so soon after enactment. That seemed to me to be a good reason and one that was certainly arguable. I understand from the Minister that when the next boundary review is complete the electoral commission will take over responsibility and the provisions in the Bill will come into effect.
I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that I do not have anything against retired Lords Justices of Appeal, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and so forth. Sometimes one has a lapse in concentration when writing out a long amendment such as this. I have no problem including the word "retired" if that is what the Government want. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, believes that there are too many judges there. He whispered it in case anyone outside heard and he is in front of a judge tomorrow—of course, professionally. I noticed that he had no problem with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Fookes. As requested, I believe that the Minister should address that more fully.
I was staggered by what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, told the Committee. It is unbelievable that the Boundary Commission should have bent to pressure. Every political party tries to put pressure on that commission, but by and large, I am happy to say, they all fail. Sometimes political parties believe that another party has put too much pressure on, but I suspect that that is not the case. It seems to me that if my party wants to exert some influence on the Boundary Commission we should recruit the government of the Republic of Ireland to our cause and then all would be well. I liked the unintended consequence, which is something I always tell the Government about in any constitutional arrangement. I do not believe that the government of the Republic would desire Dr Hendron to lose his seat and Adams to win it, but that is the working of the law of intended consequences.
1752
I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 13 where the Boundary Commission's functions are set out. Subsection (4) states:
"Only an Electoral Commissioner or a deputy Electoral Commissioner may he appointed a member of a Boundary Committee: and only an Electoral Commissioner may be appointed chairman of a Boundary Committee".
If the noble Lord does not accept my amendment, does that mean that, at some point in the future after the next Boundary Commission is set up, Boundary Commissions will no longer be chaired by judges? If the noble Lord does not accept my amendment because he does not want too many judges, he cannot have judges from whom to draw the chairmen of the boundary committee. Therefore, I wonder whether we have joined-up government in this Bill. If the chairman of a boundary committee must be an electoral commissioner and we are not to have judges, it seems to me that judges will not chair the boundary committee. Therefore, in order to prove me wrong, I should be grateful to hear from the Minister how he interprets that clause.
If I am right in what I have just explained to the Committee, I believe that we shall certainly need to look at the matter very carefully between now and Report. I quite understand that people who are appointed to the committee can be made deputy electoral commissioners. However, frankly, they are fairly limited in number. Am I right? I believe that t hey number the same as the commissioners. Therefore, when a Boundary Commission sits for all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, many members of the commission—both the commissioners and the deputies—will be tied up in the work of the Boundary Commission.
I wonder whether the Government have given enough thought to this matter. Perhaps they have simply decided, "It's a long way down the road. If we are not going to do it immediately, we'll bother about it when we get there". I do not particularly believe that one should legislate on the basis of crossing a bridge when one reaches it. I believe that we have reached it now and, in addition to answering the other points, I should like the Minister to explain how he envisages that the system will work once Clause 13 comes into effect.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the Committee for giving me the opportunity to amplify some of the points that I made earlier in responding to the questions raised.
Perhaps I may start with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I believe that the electoral commission can be well served by having a broad base of professional expertise and support. Therefore, it follows that the argument which I believe started to be developed this afternoon—that somehow that can be guaranteed or ensured only by having a commission full of retired judges, lawyers and so on— does not necessarily follow. I believe that there are many other areas of expertise from which we can draw; for example, the business world, the world of accountancy, the academic community, the regulatory

1753
sector generally, the voluntary sector, the Civil Service and, of course, local government. I am sure that all those areas of interest will bring forward expertise from which the commission will benefit greatly.
However, none of that is to say—I believe it was a view developed by Members on the opposition Benches—that we have something against the judiciary, and retired judges in particular. Of course that is not the case. They have our greatest and highest respect, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor earlier this afternoon. I am certainly not ruling out their presence on the commission. They may well be among those from whom the commission chairmen are drawn in the future. I believe that that is an important consideration.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is very keen to see a retired judge chair the commission. Of course, that is an important consideration. However, I do not believe that at this stage it would be right to rule out expertise and independence from wherever it comes; whether it be from the legal profession, accountants, civil servants, former chief executives or whatever. I believe that we must draw widely, and that is the point that we are trying to make.
Perhaps I may address the issue raised latterly by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that, from his interpretation of Clause 13, the boundary committee chairmen may not be lawyers or judges. I believe that that follows from the way in which we have set out the legislation. At the moment that is the case, but it need not necessarily be so in the future. After all, this is a new commission. It has a new range of responsibilities. We are bringing together and seeking to merge commissions. However, the electoral commission is an entirely new notion. Of course, a very important part of its work will be to examine local government boundaries in terms of local elections and the boundaries of constituencies so far as concerns other elections.
However, we want to see something that is holistic. That is the general approach that we are attempting to adopt in this matter and it is for that reason that I have made the case that I have this afternoon. Therefore, we want a broadly-based commission—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am now doing something that one should never do: I am asking a question to which I do not know the answer. I believe that the current position is that judges chair the Boundary Commission. Is that by Act of Parliament? If so, is this Bill repealing that portion of the Act of Parliament? It would be very useful to know the answer. I believe that I am correct in understanding that in future the chairmen of boundary committees will not be judges. However, if that has been the statutory position in the past, are the Government now repealing that statutory position?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer to the noble Lord's question is that, yes, in effect, that is what we
1754
are doing. I am grateful to him for taking the question further. It may well be that I need to go through the schedules and make clearer exactly where we are effecting a repeal, because that would appear to be the effect of what we are doing with that particular clause.
I was about to conclude my comments. Before I do so, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that page 181, line 29, of the Bill lists a repeal to Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act. It may help the noble Lord to know where that can be found.
I hope that I have answered noble Lords' points in this discussion. I trust that Members of the Committee will be content with what I have said. I trust also that they will be convinced of the need for this entirely new creature within the body politic. We are trying to create something which is new and different, which has independence and impartiality, and which draws widely in its composition. If we achieve that, I believe that we shall be the better for it. We shall have a useful and valuable regulatory body that takes in a whole range of professional expertise, experience and background to advise us better on how we may regulate our political parties and conduct an important element of our political life. In saying that, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments this afternoon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord forgive me and allow me to ask him to consider one point between now and Report? The noble Lord keeps saying that it is a question of expertise. I concede that that is, of course, an element. However, it is not a question of expertise when one talks about judges. Here, we are concerned with a political question: the Boundary Commission. It has political connotations and judges are seen as the embodiment of impartiality. I am not putting forward a case that judges have greater expertise than, for example, an accountant or anyone else. Not a bit of it. However, they are perceived by the public to be men of total impartiality and of the uttermost integrity. In a political situation such as this, it seems to me to be utter madness not to accept that point. I ask the noble Lord to seek advice on this issue between now and Report.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. Is there behind the noble Lord's comments the belief that civil servants, senior local government officers and people drawn from the business world cannot effect the same quality of impartiality and judgment? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am saying that this is a political question; it is the public perception. The judges are accepted as possessing that quality of total impartiality and utter integrity. That is all I am saying.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course, I accept that. Clearly, we must reflect on the balance of the commission, its composition and membership. We shall have to think very carefully about the appointments. Having said that, I believe that I have

1755
made the case that other professions and other sectors of life can provide people of the utmost integrity and impartiality. That is what we should be seeking in this exercise.
Baroness Fookes: I wish I could say that I am satisfied with the Minister's answers. Sadly, I am not. Like others, I hope that the Government will reflect before Report stage on the points that have been made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Like my noble friend, I am rather disappointed, especially as regards her amendment which is a good deal narrower than mine. Certainly, when we discover that the boundary committees are no longer to be chaired by judges, it is reasonable to ask that the Boundary Commission should be chaired by a judge.
I listened to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, put to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The answer is that judges are probably better at being neutral and unbiased because that is what they are trained to be. I cannot say that most of the rest of us are trained in that way. We may sometimes think we are but that is not necessarily the case.
In many other respects in this country, we use judges because we think they have a training which allows them to listen in a balanced and neutral way to a case, weigh up the evidence, and so on. If the Government take the view that I can be balanced and weigh up the evidence and so on, perhaps they will decide to send me to the Bench. I should not complain too much about that, given the salary which is a good deal better than the expenses for attending your Lordships' House. I do not believe that they will go that far with the argument that judges are just like lots of other people.
I have one further point to leave with the Minister. He did not really answer my question. If I read this correctly, at some stage, when boundary committees sit in the future, four out of the five commissioners could be chairmen of boundary committees. That seems to me to mean that four out of the five will be fairly heavily involved in what they are doing there. That will leave the commission itself rather thin.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: When the commission is expanded, as I understand it—and I thought this was a common understanding—the number of commissioners will increase. So it will not be four from five; it will be four from nine. I hope that that is a common understanding.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I was asking the question, I realised why there is a reference to "not more than nine" in the Bill.
This has been an extremely useful discussion. I see much more clearly what the position will be in the future in relation to the boundary committees. I am not certain that I am satisfied with the answer and the argument that we should move away from what we
1756
have traditionally done. We shall have to consider that before the next stage. However, we have had a good debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Electoral Conunission]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 98, line 10, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Viscount said: The paragraph which my amendment seeks to omit was inserted in Committee in another place. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 states:
"The Commission may do anything",
and I stress the word "anything",
"(except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of their functions".
That concerned my right honourable friend Sir George Young in another place. He pointed out that under the Bill Clause 8 allows certain things at the request of Clause 3, which allows other things with the agreement of Clause 5 which, however, bans certain other things and Clause 11 which adds other parameters.
The Government then come along with a provision which causes alarm because of its wording. The Minister claimed that this was a mundane little amendment designed entirely so that the commission could obtain secretarial services, perhaps dispose of property and perhaps buy office space. He said that the provision did not extend any of the commission's functions and emphasised the point by saying, "I really mean that". We can agree with him except that the Bill sets out what the Secretary of State can do and what may be done in terms of financing the commission. It seems to me that the overriding power in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 goes too far and that the Government should find a way of including in paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 a definition of what is intended because at present the alarm bells are ringing.
When the Minister in the other place says that the schedule does not extend the commission's functions, I am sure that he believes that to be the case. But the fact that the commission may do "anything" is what causes us concern. At least the Treasury managed to have some input because the words "except borrow money" are included.
The second amendment—Amendment No. 18—concerns the financing of the commission. I have a number of questions. The first is a simple one to which I am sure there is a simple answer, but I cannot find it. The Bill says that expenditure shall be met out of money provided by Parliament,
"except so far as it is met by the National Assembly for Wales".
I wonder why there is a reference to Wales and not to Scotland. What is the situation in Scotland? Is that dealt with elsewhere in the Bill and I have missed it? I do not seem to be able to find it in the schedules. It would be useful to have an explanation.

1757
The Government have not really said yet how much the commission will spend in the first few years. What is the budget going to be? Are there any estimates? What will the money be spent on?
It is important that we understand what income is proposed for the commission and how likely it is to over-run. What is the likely scale of income? The Government have not said anything on that issue. It is important that we know and understand, at this stage of the Bill, the sums involved. This is a new entity, but the Government must have some estimates. It would be useful to know what they are.
These probing amendments are designed to allow the Government to amplify and explain the position to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for stressing the probing nature of these amendments, which means that my answer can be brief, although it may not be as complete as he would like. Amendment No. 4 would delete paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which is a standard incidental powers provision, as found in many Acts of Parliament. As a body corporate, the electoral commission will be able to do anything that is incidental to the carrying out of its functions, and that is important. If it tries to do anything that is outside its functions, it will be acting outside its powers.
Those incidental powers include the power to acquire property and to enter into contracts. That principle has been established by case law dating from 1880. Although the matter is not in serious doubt, we believe that it would be sensible to have a clear statement of the position on the face of the Bill.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which would be deleted by the amendment, has numerous precedents in other legislation establishing bodies corporate. I can offer two examples from legislation passed by the previous administration: first, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; and, secondly, paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the Pensions Act 1995, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, could have told him about. I believe that that Act came into being when the noble Lord was in a senior position in the relevant department. The noble Viscount may be comforted to know that that Act has precisely the same provision as this, as do countless other Acts of Parliament with which I could bore the House for a long time.
I should emphasise that the commission could not exercise its incidental powers in such a way as to extend its functions, which are limited to those set out in the Bill. On that basis I hope that the noble Viscount is satisfied.
At first we were at a loss to understand the purpose of Amendment No. 18, but by saying that it is a probing amendment, the noble Viscount has taken away all our heat and anger-not that there was much in the first place! If this amendment were carried, the
1758
effect would be to scupper the establishment of the commission altogether, which we know is not the policy of the Opposition.
Paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 1 is an entirely standard provision in a Bill setting up a public body. The commission will receive some income direct from fees and charges, but, in large measure, it will be funded by voted moneys. The arrangements for setting the commission's budget, set out in Schedule 1, will ensure that the commission is not beholden to the Government, while at the same time retaining a degree of accountability to Parliament for the proper expenditure of public funds. It is believed that the annual running costs will be £2.6 million. I hope that that answers one of the questions posed by the noble Viscount.
The National Assembly for Wales is referred to specifically because local government boundaries in Wales are a devolved matter. Amendment No. 19 will introduce equivalent provisions for Scotland, consequential on a new clause about local government boundaries there.
Without a functioning electoral commission, the control set out in the Bill would be meaningless. I hope that I have given the noble Viscount at least a taste, for example, of the amount of annual money that the commission will have for running costs and that I have answered his question about why there is a reference to Wales but not to Scotland.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am afraid I did not understand the Minister's reply. On page 102 of the Bill, in Schedule 1, paragraph 14, there is a reference to the National Assembly for Wales to which the Minister referred. He then mentioned why Scotland is not included in that paragraph. Perhaps he can clarify that as I did not understand his explanation.
Lord Bach: I shall do my best. The National Assembly for Wales is referred to because local government boundaries in Wales are a devolved matter. Amendment No. 19 introduces the equivalent position for Scotland, consequential on the new clause about local government boundaries there.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Was that a mistake in the Bill?
Lord Bach: I am not sure that Bills ever have any mistakes in them! In Amendment No. 19 we put the matter right.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I accept what he says about Amendment No. 4. He cites the Pensions Act of 1995, which I remember extremely well from the number of hours spent in the Chamber when my noble friend dealt with it. I have two points. First, as it is such a standard clause, why was it not already in the Bill? It causes us to question, as we did when we first saw this lengthy Bill, the confidence that we can have in the drafting of the Bill.

1759
in another place, the Minister's noble friend gave an intriguing answer. He said:
"the amendment is not necessary, in the sense that case law dating back to 1880 makes it clear that a public authority such as the Electoral Commission would in any event have the facility to do anything incidental to its functions".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/2/00: col. 631.]
This is one of those "belt and braces" clauses. We are concerned about the word "anything" but we shall study carefully what the Minister has said and look up some of the examples that he has given.
I am delighted that the Minister understands the serious purpose behind the second amendment in this group. He has realised that it is a probing amendment, designed to aid the Government to educate your Lordships' House on their intentions in the Bill. I am grateful for his explanation of Amendment No. 19. When we tabled our amendment, Amendment No. 19 was not on the Marshalled List, or if it was I did not see it. He has helpfully mentioned the budget. When we start to discuss the functions of the commission we shall have further questions about the budget, but I am grateful for the Minister's answer. In an entirely conciliatory manner, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 98, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("(3) An Electoral Commissioner shall cease to hold office on the occurrence of any of the following events—

(a) he consents to being nominated as a candidate at a relevant election (within the meaning of Part II) or to being included in a registered party's list of candidates at such an election:

(b) he takes up any office or employment in or with—

(i) a registered party or any accounting unit of such a party,

(ii) a recognised third party (within the meaning of Part VI), or

(iii) a permitted participant (within the meaning of Part VII);

(c) he is named as a donor in the register of donations reported under Chapter III or IV of Part IV or in any statement of donations included in a return delivered to the Commission under section 93 or 117;

(d) he becomes a member of a registered party.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important group of government amendments that relates to the role of the electoral commission and its ability to command public confidence in carrying out its many and varied functions, in particular its regulatory functions. In that respect, it must be scrupulously independent—as we have already discussed—both of the government of the day, of the political parties and of the political process.
Quite rightly, the Neil committee recognised that a number of consequences follow from that position. The first is that members of the commission should not be people who have previously been involved in any substantial way in party politics. The second consequence cited by the committee is that the UK electoral commission, unlike its American
1760
counterpart, should consist of independent persons and not of party representatives. We believe that that is important.
It is important that those restrictions on party political activity should be set out on the face of the Bill to avoid confusion. Government Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, 25, 26 and 52 accordingly provide that no one shall be appointed as an electoral commissioner, a deputy electoral commissioner or an assistant elect oral commissioner if they have, in the past 10 years, either held a relevant elective office, been an officer of a political party or made a donation which is recordable under the provisions of Part IV of the Bill. Previous membership of a political party will not in itself be a bar on appointment, but if a successful candidate is a member of a political party, they will be required to resign their membership before the appointment is confirmed. The amendments further provide for the automatic termination of a commissioner's appointment if they subsequently become associated with a political party, either as a member, donor, candidate, office holder or simply as an employee. That follows on logically here.
Similar restrictions will apply to the members of staff of the electoral commission. Those are covered by Amendments Nos. 14 to 16. However, in their case, there will be no bar on membership of a political party. That said, as with civil servants and local government employees, the senior staff of the commission will he subject to non-statutory restrictions of the party political activities they may engage in.
I hope that, on reflection, the Official Opposition will support these government amendments. Perhaps I may say that these are changes to the Bill for which the Opposition Front Bench was pressing in another place. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said in the debate on Second Reading that those were probing amendments. However, I did not believe him then and I would probably would not believe him if he were to repeat it today. As I said, that was the position taken by the Official Opposition in debates in another place.
It is worth recording that during discussions on Report on 13th March in another place, the honourable Member for Ribble Valley, Mr Nigel Evans, said:
"The Neill report further recommended that the commission should include no party politicians. That is a sound recommendation … there is nothing in the Bill to prevent past or present party politicians being members of the Electoral Commission, and we hope that the Government will reconsider its composition".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/00; col. 37.]
We did not need to reconsider its composition because we made it clear that we were happy with the Neill recommendations. However, there can be no clearer statement of the Official Opposition's view than that made by Mr Nigel Evans. It is a view shared by the Government and reflected in these amendments.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton, and others, expressed doubts about the need for absolute independence on the part of the commission. She argued that commissioners must have a detailed understanding of the reality of running

1761
elections and political parties. However, I should like to remind the Committee that a large part of the commission's work will be regulating political parties' income and expenditure. We are not putting in place a system of self-regulation. We take the view that it would be a clear conflict of interest for individual commissioners with party affiliations to preside over such matters. After all, we do not fill the Gaming Board for Great Britain with representatives of the casino and bingo industries.
The Government accept that the commission cannot take decisions in a vacuum, sealed off from the real world of politics and elections. That would be foolish. I fully expect that, in undertaking many of its functions—for example, the review of electoral law—the commission will want to engage and consult in different ways with political parties at all levels. Having heard the evidence from the practitioners on the ground, the commissioners will then have the information they need in order to make an impartial and independent judgment on the issues at stake. By operating in this way, it is simply not the case that the commissioners need first-hand experience of running a political party or fighting elections.
I believe that I have set out the Government's position as clearly as possible and I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My noble friend knows that I still have considerable reservations about these amendments. However, before I address them, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that during the debate in Committee in the other place, the Minister did say that various efficiency gains would also be realised if the functions of the parliamentary and local government boundaries were merged in one body. Perhaps we should meet and have a conversation about that.
As regards the point we are presently discussing, I have great difficulty in believing that it is possible to form a commission of people with no basic experience of the job that they are meant to supervise or regulate. I do not accept that a regulatory body should be comprised of people who have never participated in the organisations that they are trying to regulate. Furthermore, I do not accept the argument that the commission should look to political parties for specific issues. How would they know how to define such specific issues? I believe that some kind of continuity of discussion needs to be established with political parties.
Indeed, although I take absolutely the points made by my noble friend as regards the Government's response to points that were made in another place, I find it a little strange that the Minister, in accepting many of those points, said on 14th February that,
"There must be a willingness to have people with at least some awareness of the political process on such a commission".—[Official Report], Commons, 14/2/00; col. 642.]
He went on to argue the case by saying,
"Striking a balance is important".—[Official Report, 14/2/00; col. 643.]
1762
I believe that that illustrates the issue here.
One or two strange statements have been made in the amendment. Even if one accepts it in principle, I think it goes a little too far. I am also a little confused because it states that a commissioner should not be a member of a political party, but then, in a later paragraph, it states that if one becomes a commissioner one would have to resign. I should have thought that if one cannot be a member in the first place—in particular if the rule states that one must have been out of politics for 10 years—then one could not resign. Perhaps that point could be clarified.
I do of course accept that people who are currently parliamentarians or major donors to political parties should not be appointed to the commission. However, to return to my earlier comments, I believe that there must be at least some level of expertise on the commission either by using co-optees or possibly by setting up a permanent advisory committee to which the commission could refer whenever it so needed. That may be the solution to the problem here.
In the debate on Second Reading I believe that Members from all sides of the House felt that these provisions were far too restrictive. Finally, in relation to a point that we shall reach later, I should like to refer to the Speaker's Committee. That committee has the Home Secretary, the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I accept that those people have been appointed to that committee because of the expertise they can offer to the subjects. I believe that exactly the same criteria should apply to the electoral commission.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was trying to work my way through one particular aspect of this group of amendments before I had to ask my question. However, I shall probably ask it in any case because I am not entirely satisfied that I have understood all the amendments in this grouping.
The question of the membership is difficult. Certainly I am aware that my honourable friends in another place held firm views that membership should be kept as far away from politics as possible. Perhaps the motivation for that view—dare I whisper this to the Committee—was that they are rather suspicious of the present Prime Minister, who loads committees and commissions with his friends. Even if they are not members of his party, they are supporters of his party. I think that my honourable friends are probably right to be suspicious of how the Government behave as regards these issues.
The noble Baroness has made a good point about the need to find people to appoint to the commission who do know a little about the political process, even if they do not know much about the political parties. I have a suspicion that we shall see a long queue of academics forming to join this body. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who ruled himself out by becoming a member of a political party, many of us share the suspicion that such academics are at least political pundits who, if they are not members of a political party, then they are

1763
pretty keen supporters. That is especially the case if they are psephologists and saying something that we may not like to hear. We then assume that their psephology is tainted by their political colour.
Inevitably we shall be looking at people such as academics because I suspect that the people the noble Lord. Lord Bassam, mentions, such as accountants and businessmen, if they are interested in the way politics work, will be members of political parties and will therefore be disqualified. So the Government will have a difficult task finding commissioners who understand how the political system works but who are not in any way involved in the system from a party point of view.
Two amendments ago the Minister made much of professional expertise being represented on the electoral commission. Perhaps he can help us by indicating where he expects to find that professional expertise. It is not good enough to suggest accountants, businessmen and other similar people as potential members. As I say, if they are in the least interested in the political process, I suspect that they will already be members of political parties. It may be that they are not actual members and just make donations; if they do not donate more than £500 they may be all right. I suppose if they just buy raffle tickets from their next door neighbour, that will be all right. No matter how many raffle tickets they buy, they will still be on the right side of this particular provision and therefore could be electoral commissioners.
The Minister mentioned the Gaming Board, and while not all members of that board are drawn from the gambling industry, certainly some of them are. Another Bill wending its complicated way through your Lordships' Chamber—a Bill which makes this Bill look simplicity and openness itself—concerns the Financial Services Authority. That authority will include members drawn from the very bodies it will regulate. Indeed, the chairman or chief executive (I am not sure what his title is) was, until recently, the Deputy Chairman of the Bank of England. So precedent is not with the Minister, though I understand where he is coming from.
What I am puzzling over, and perhaps the Minister can help me, are the words, "member of staff". Are ordinary members of staff—not a chief executive, not somebody of great importance but, for example, the secretaries—to be barred from being members of political parties? It seemed to me that they were, and then I re-read Amendment No. 14, which says,
"A person may not be appointed chief executive or other member of the staff of the Commission if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(3A)(b) to (d)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner".
On examination I find that the Government have missed out the words,
"is a member of a registered party".
So the chief executive could therefore be a member of a registered party. But I thought I heard the Minister say that he could not have been so for the past 10 years.
These provisions produce some confusion which I do not believe we will resolve this evening. We shall have to look at this provision when it appears in the
1764
Bill and then work our way through it. I can assure the Committee that the position gets worse when we come to some future government amendments which take up pages and pages and, quite frankly, deserve a Keeling schedule to help us wend our way through them.
I do not know whether the Minister can help with the difference between the chief executive and senior members of the commission staff and the most junior members. If in fact they are not allowed to be members of a political party, will that infringe their convention rights? I have no doubt that the Minister has said that the Bill does not breach the convention. Perhaps he should check whether saying that they cannot be members of a political party actually breaches the convention.
So there are a number of points the Minister may be able to help us with. If he cannot, then we shall have to make amendments on Report to what will be virtually a re-written Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: I wish to add my support not only to my noble friend, Lord Mackay, but also to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I have tremendous sympathy with her points.
I understand the motivation for the amendments, but the amendments in this group appear to be unduly restrictive—I have in mind Amendment No. 25 and the 10-year gap—particularly when one considers some of the practices elsewhere. After all, some people move straight from holding political office (membership of either House) to become judges, yet it is assumed that they are "scrupulously independent", to use the Minister's phrase, the moment that they make the transition. In the other place someone may move from being a practising politician to being Speaker, because his or her experience of the House is invaluable, and assumes immediately a role of independence. So I am not sure why there has to be a gap as long as the 10 years imposed by the amendment. It strikes me that any knowledge one had prior to that time would not be relevant in this context. There may be a case for a gap, but the amendments as they stand are unduly restrictive and there is a case for redrafting them.
Lord Rennard: I hope the Minister will listen to the powerful and persuasive points made about the need for people to be involved in the commission who have day-to-day knowledge of how political parties work.
A couple of months ago we hit a slight problem when organising the London elections. Highly talented civil servants were, for the first time, thrust into the responsibility of organising an election campaign. From a position of understandable ignorance, given their normal jobs, of how an election should be organised, problems arose that otherwise might not have arisen.
We now have a great deal of experience of people from this country visiting other countries establishing democratic systems. They often work for the

1765
Westminster Foundation for Democracy. They find that some people who are independent or concerned with the greater good of politics are unable to fulfil their role properly or as well as perhaps others who, through the experience of party politics as agents and organisers, understand how things are done. There is a case for involving people with more detailed knowledge of how parties are organised in the work of the commission.
The United States Federal Electoral Commission has six members, three of whom are nominated by the Republicans and three by the Democrats. As soon as they are nominated they cease to have any political role. But there is no suggestion in the United States that because they were previously active as Democrats or Republicans, that they are not able to do their job. Indeed, I feel that they are able to do their job more effectively because they understand the way in which the parties work.
So there is a case, to some extent, for suggesting that commissioners may be poachers turned gamekeepers in pursuing the parties and holding them more properly to account than perhaps the wider-ranging panel of judges, lawyers and academics, many of whom are just as partisan as those of us who are party activists. Perhaps the advisory committee may be a way forward of involving party practitioners and advising the commission. But a huge amount of work is involved and, for it to work effectively, the advisory committee would have to be an almost full-time standing committee. It would be far better to involve, in a minority, some active party practitioners in the work of the commission to make it successful.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am sorry to rise again, but the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, reminded me of instances when even as active and participant politicians we have been able to be impartial and independent. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I first met when we were in Moscow on behalf of the Foreign Office acting as independents giving our expertise to the people, to all parties who were taking part in an election. We did not wear our party hats to do that and we worked closely together. That is a good example—it happens frequently where new democracies arise—of how one can use one's expertise and yet be impartial.
Perhaps I can make two points I should have made earlier. My noble friend said that the suggestion of independent persons rather than party representatives being appointed was a suggestion in the Neill report. Those with political experience who are appointed are not necessarily party representatives. So there has been a misinterpretation of that phrase.
Finally—and I am sorry to ask this question because my noble friend may not have an immediate answer—what happens to a member of a trade union who, as such, pays his political levy in the main probably to the Labour Party? Will he also be excluded from being a commissioner?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to say a few words in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady
1766
Gould, has just said and in support of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Rennard. I am very disturbed about the proposal that basically the more ignorant you are about the party system in this country the more likely you are to be appointed. That seems to me to be an exceptionally difficult concept. Given some of the speeches that have been made today, I very much hope that the Government will reflect on the position before we reach Report stage.
I should like to give noble Lords one analogy. The Minister referred to the Gaming Board and made the point that it would be quite possible to have representatives of the casino industry on it. But he is quite right to say that they do not serve on it. There is no analogy as regards the Gaming Board, the casino industry and the body about which we are talking. Perhaps I may give one example of where ignorance is exceptionally difficult and damaging. I refer to the appointment of the Sheehy Committee by the previous government to look into the organisation of the police service. The then Home Secretary, Mr Clarke, decided that the only people who should be appointed to the committee were those who had had no involvement with the police service. The result was probably one of the most disastrous documents that has ever been produced. Colleagues of mine who were here at the time will remember the debate on Clause 1 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which followed directly from the report of the Sheehy Committee.
I urge the Government to consider this matter most carefully between now and the Report stage. I do not believe that involvement with a political party should serve as a disqualification. I very much hope that the Minister will at least be open-minded this evening.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have enjoyed our short debate. Indeed, I found it most helpful and quite interesting. I fully understand some of the reservations that have been expressed from various corners of the Chamber, but we have made our position pretty clear on the matter. It was very much in response to a requirement for clarification made very volubly in another place. However, there is some merit in the argument that we should not end up with a politically neutered body—that is, one that is completely remote from the world of politics. That would be foolish and it is not our intention. As I said earlier, the commission will not be able to operate in a vacuum.
My noble friend Lady Gould referred to the comments of my right honourable friend in another place about the need to have people with some "awareness" on the commission. That must be right; they must have an awareness of politics. It would be foolish to think that commissioners could work without having that awareness. When I think of the sort of people we might want to see coming forward as commissioners, I am sure that such awareness will be there. For example, I served for a long time in local government; indeed, for over 20 years or more in different guises. During that time, I certainly came across plenty of chief executives. I believe that chief executives may well be that class of person from which we will draw expertise, to name but one. I did not meet

1767
one chief executive in those 20 years who did not have some awareness—in fact, they often had a great deal of awareness—of the political processes that operated within his local authority.
Frankly, if those chief executives had not had that awareness, they would not have remained in the job for very long. I am sure that that is absolutely true of the Civil Service and of people from the world of business. After all, this Chamber is full of former businessmen who bring their business experience—if you like, their political experience of their board—into this House and who function to the highest level in the world of politics—
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. However, while I accept that people like chief executives, and so on, have political experience—even electoral experience—I must point out that they do not have political party experience. This Bill is concerned with regulating political parties. That is the real problem.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I entirely accept my noble friend's point. However, as my noble friend concedes, the commission will be concerned with regulation. That is where we need expertise. The possession of knowledge and awareness, or perhaps some such involvement at an earlier time in his life, will help whoever is selected to be on the commission to exercise those regulatory functions. That much is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that this was in a way a plea for an academics' field day. I do not accept that view. Of course, people in the world of academia may well prove to be very good commissioners, but I do not see why the commission should be loaded with academics. I do not accept that at all, although I am sure that many academics will have the sort of experience that we shall require.
One or two further specific points were made and perhaps I may clarify one issue that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised about restrictions on staff. I thought that I made it clear earlier, but I shall repeat the position so that it is clear. There will be no bar for members of the commission's staff continuing to be members of a political party. Having said that, civil servants, local government employees and the senior staff of the commission will be subject to non-statutory restrictions on the party political activities in which they may engage. I hope that I have clarified that point. My understanding is that staff at all levels within the organisation, including the chief executive, may be members of political parties. So they will not, if you like, have their human right to be a member of a political party infringed in any way, shape or form.
Perhaps I may pick up a similar point made by my noble friend Lady Gould about membership of political parties and being a commissioner. Amendment No. 25 provides that no one may be appointed if he is a member of a political party. That does not prevent someone who is a member of a party applying for a post. But if that person were selected, he
1768
would need to resign before the appointment is confirmed. Amendment No. 5 terminates the appointment of a commissioner if he subsequently becomes a member of a party. I hope that that clarifies the issue so valuably raised by my noble friend.
These amendments are important. They fulfil a commitment that we gave in another place. I am not closed in mind to some of the arguments that Members of the Committee have put forward. I was rather drawn towards the observation made by my noble friend Lady Gould about the possibility of there being a need for an advisory committee. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made a case for such a committee being established on a permanent basis because of the constant need to take advice from those involved in the political process. I shall be happy to give further consideration to those points before we reach the Report stage. If noble Lords who are interested in this aspect of the functioning of the commission and its relationship with the political parties wish to meet to discuss those points with me, I shall, as I said earlier, be in listening mode and have an open door in that respect. Having said that, I commend—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the Minister commends the amendments to the Committee, perhaps he could respond to and clarify a few further points. I meant to ask him whether I understood the position correctly. I have written down here that,
"Cross-Bench Members of your Lordships' House are not, by definition, members of a political party. Therefore, Cross-Bench Members would actually be eligible to be commissions".
Is that the case?
Lord Carter: Can the noble Lord say which definition says that an independent Member of this Chamber is not a member of a political party? Some choose not to be a member of a party grouping in this House, but there is nothing which says that they cannot be ipso facto members of a political party.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I fully accept that there may be reasons for Members of the Cross Benches being members of a political party and yet not members of a party grouping in this Chamber, but I suspect that the majority of Members of the Cross Benches are not members of political parties. Therefore, my question still stands; namely, would they be able to be members of the commission, despite the fact that they are obviously Members of one of the Houses of Parliament?
My next point concerns donors to a political party. If someone is a large shareholder, or perhaps the chairman, of a company, and that company, not the individual, gives a donation to a political party, would that individual be eligible to be considered for appointment as a commissioner? Perhaps this is something we should consider further. However, if I heard the noble Lord aright when he responded to ray question on whether a member of the commission's staff could be a member of a political party, I think he told me that everyone, including the chief executive,

1769
could be a member of a political party. I drew in my breath a little at that. I would not have minded if the noble Lord had told me that people in the commission below a certain level could be members of a political party. However, I drew in my breath when he said that the chief executive could be a member of a political party. I may want to contemplate that matter further.
The noble Lord may wish to contemplate the following proposition. Would he be content to discover that the person who is recruited to be the chief executive of the electoral commission is a member of the Conservative Party or of the Liberal Democrat Party? He might be quite content to find out that that person is a member of the Labour Party, but I wonder whether I or the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would be content about that. We may all wish to contemplate this matter further.
I take the point—my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place were keen to point this out—that the electoral commissioners should not be involved in political parties, although the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Rennard, put forward a good argument on this point. I believe that my right honourable and honourable friends are a little suspicious of the Prime Minister's powers of patronage. Perhaps I share that suspicion, but perish the thought that I should have a suspicious nature! The chief executive is a pretty important person, who will be doing much of the work. I suspect that he will go through the accounts with his accountancy staff. It will not be a case of the commissioners going through the accounts, but the staff. We ought to consider that point.
My final point is one that I should already have made. I refer to the Neill committee's recommendations on the membership of the electoral commission. The report states that the commission should not follow the path of the US Federal Election Commission. The report further states,
"nevertheless, the individual members of the Commission should be acceptable to the leaders of the main parties, who should be consulted in the course of their appointment".
Will that recommendation be followed, as I do not think that it appears on the face of the Bill? Have the Government adopted that recommendation of the Neill committee?
Lord Jopling: I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip put his foot in it by making the comments that he did from the Front Bench a few moments ago. He asserted that there were Members of the Cross Benches in this Chamber who were members of political parties. Within the past year or two I have heard it said that there has been a tendency for the Labour Party to introduce supporters of that party as new Members of this Chamber under the guise of Cross-Benchers. I always imagined that Members of the Cross Benches were not members of political parties. However, now the Chief Whip asserts that they may be. There is a convention in another place
1770
that Chief Whips are seen but not heard. The Government Chief Whip may regret having made that Freudian slip and having let the cat out of the bag.
Lord Carter: That is extremely unworthy of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, appears to assume that Members of the Cross Benches are not members of a political party outside the Chamber. I said that that did not follow. I should not be surprised to discover—I do not know what the position is—that some Members of the Cross Benches are members of political parties but choose not to join a party grouping in this Chamber. That was all I was saying. I understood the noble Lord to imply that Members of the Cross Benches are automatically not members of a political party. I do not think that is the case. I have not let any cats out of any bags; I am simply saying that we do not know what the position is. However, as I say, I should be surprised if there are not some members of some political parties on the Cross Benches. That is all I am saying.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I do not know whether I can help the noble Lord but I can say only that I am not aware of any Cross-Bencher who is in receipt of a Whip of any party.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shudder to consider that I should come between Members of this Chamber in a debate on whether Cross-Benchers do or do not receive a formal or informal party Whip or have a party political affiliation. I am interested in and amused by the debate but it is not one that I intend to be drawn into.
I shall try to respond to the point about donors and political levy payers. If I do not cover all aspects of the matter, I shall write to those who raised this issue. My understanding is that levy payers would not be affected by the measure we are discussing. Neither do I believe that low level donors would be affected in the way that has been suggested. I do not believe that they would necessarily be considered to be active in the political process. Many people are levy payers. They may not even realise that they are levy payers. That may be a matter of regret to some but it is the case. I believe that we can leave that matter on one side.
I have listened carefully to the debate which, as I said earlier, I believe has been useful. I am happy to continue to listen and to receive further representations on some of the important issues we have discussed. I shall endeavour to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with regard to the chief executive having a party affiliation. I take note of the noble Lord's concerns. However, I believe that in the real world many chief executives or leading civil servants may have undeclared party memberships; they are sleeping members, if you like. Who are we to say that they should cease to hold that party membership? Towards the end of the 1980s there was much discussion on this subject and members of the party opposite tried to prevent people who worked in local government having a party political affiliation.

1771
Concerns were expressed at that time that to move in that direction would infringe human rights. I certainly shared that concern and expressed it at that time.
This has been an interesting debate. As I said, I am happy to receive further representations on this matter. I hope that the Committee will endorse the Government's amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that the noble Lord answered my point about the Neill committee's recommendation that appointments to the commission should be made with the agreement of the leaders of the main parties. I read out the recommendation in the report which stated that those appointments should be acceptable to the leaders of the main parties.
Lord Bassani of Brighton: As far as I am able to give an undertaking, it is an important recommendation and I shall give it further consideration; we have not ruled it out. I shall be happy to clarify the matter later if' the noble Lord is content with that,
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 98, line 25, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 24.
The amendments concern an important point of principle. The committee will find Schedule 1 to the Bill on page 98. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule deals with the term of office of the electoral commissioners, and paragraph 5 relates to their salaries and allowances. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 states:
"No motion shall be made for such an Address unless the Speaker's Committee has presented a report to the House of Commons".
On page 99, paragraph 5(1) states:
"as may he specified by a resolution of the House of Commons".
Amendment No. 24 relates to Clause 3(1) of the Bill, which states:
"The powers of Her Majesty under section 1(4) and (5) shall be exercisable on an Address from the House of Commons".
The Bill puts all those powers in another place. There is no reference to Parliament as a whole; there is no reference to your Lordships' House. We think that is wrong.
Referendums, elections and political parties are important matters, and this Bill covers both Houses. It is extraordinary that the Government would want to exclude your Lordships' House from having the opportunity for this order to be presented to it. In effect, the Bill states that your Lordships are not allowed to have a view on this issue; that it is purely a matter for the other place; that it is really nothing to do with this House.
This Bill is very important. It concerns the constitution of this country. This House has traditionally been the guardian of the constitution of
1772
this country. Excluding it from taking affirmative action on this issue in the same way as another place is quite wrong. Not only is it wrong, but we find it surprising that the Government should do so.
We regard this matter with the utmost seriousness. I hope that the Minister will consider issue carefully and give a favourable reply. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, Amendments Nos. 6 and 24, require that the power to appoint and remove members of the commission would be exercisable only on an Address from both Houses of Parliament as opposed to the House of Commons only, as the Bill presently provides. He makes a case for amending the Bill in that way and prays in aid the important role that this House has in our constitutional arrangements. I understand the argument but I am not entirely in agreement with it.
Similarly, Amendment No. 8 would require the remuneration of electoral commissioners to be approved by an Address of both Houses. The existing provisions are modelled on those for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is good reason for regarding the appointment of electoral commissioners as also being a matter to be dealt with in another place.
Just a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made the point that there should be consultation between the leaders of the political parties on appointments to the commission. That is very important and very telling. Such leaders are, of course, drawn from the membership of another place.
The key purpose of the arrangements for appointment is to ensure that those appointed have the confidence of the chief participants in the electoral process; namely, the main political parties. Clause 3(2) accordingly requires that the leaders of those political parties be consulted before a motion for an Address is brought forward. If it is right, as I believe it is, that the consultative process should focus upon the parties represented in the elected chamber, it follows that the formal business of moving an Address should be dealt with there too. That is a very important point of principle. Given the functions of the electoral commission, it would be difficult to justify a similar role for your Lordships' House.
With those thoughts in mind, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: I am not very happy with the Ministers reply for a number of reasons. He gave a comparison with the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is an entirely wrong comparison because the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General relates to finance. He deals with matters which are purely to do with the other place; they are not matters which come under the remit of your Lordships' House. This Bill comes under the remit of both Houses.
The Minister described the consultation in another place on such issues, but that also is an irrelevant argument. We are not talking about political parties

1773
but about an order made to Parliament. We are saying that it should he made to both Houses of Parliament, not only the one. That is quite wrong.
I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to consider the arguments I have put forward. With that in mind, I shall seek leave to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bifien, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Blatch, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Bumham, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buscombe, B.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Onslow, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Patten, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L

Erroll, E.

Rogan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Burlison, L.

Addington, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Alderdice, L.

Chandos, V.

Alii, L.

Christopher, L.

Amos, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe,L.

Avebury, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bach, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Barker, B.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde. B

Borrie, L.

Desai, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bragg, L.

Diamond, L.

Brennan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brett, L.

Dubs, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Eatwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

1774

Falkland, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Northover, B.

Gale, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Gilbert, L.

Paul, L.

Goodhart, L.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Greaves, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harrison, L.

Rennard, L

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hollisof Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Sawyer, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hoyle, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Simon, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thornton, B.

Levy, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Tope,L.

Lipsey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Uddin, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackenzie of Culkein, L.

Warner, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McNally, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Whitaker, B.

Wassey of Darwen, B.

Whitty, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilkins, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 98, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) An Electoral Commissioner may be relieved of his office by Her Majesty at his own request.
( ) In this paragraph "registered party" includes, in relation to times before the appointed day for the purposes of Part 11 of this Act, a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act l998.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 9 to 16.
Page 99, line 34, leave out ("sub-paragraph (2)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (1A) and (2)").

1775
Page 99, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 38 and insert—
("(1A) A Deputy Electoral Commissioner shall cease to hold office on the occurrence of such an event as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 3(3).
(2) A Deputy Electoral Commissioner may be removed from office by the Commission, but only if they").
Page 100, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) A person may not be appointed as an Assistant Electoral Commissioner if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(3A)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner.").
Page 100, line 17, at beginning insert ("(subject to sub-paragraph (2A))").
Page 100, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) An Assistant Electoral Commissioner shall cease to hold office on the occurrence of such an event as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 3(3).").
Page 101, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) A person may not be appointed as chief executive or other member of the staff of the Commission if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(3A)(b) to (d)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner.").
Page 101, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2A),").
Page 101, line g, at end insert—
("(2A) The appointment of any member of the staff of the Commission shall terminate on the occurrence of such an event as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 3(3).").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 101, leave out line 17 and insert ("end of the list of "Royal Commissions and other Commissions"—").
The noble Lord said: Government Amendment No. 17 is a minor technical amendment. Paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 1 would presently add the electoral commission to the list of other bodies contained in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972. It would be more appropriate for the commission to be included in the list of Royal Commissions and other commissions included in that schedule. Amendment No. 17 makes this minor change. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was going to nod the amendment through, but I should like to ask a simple question. I presume that this matter involves the superannuation of the staff and not the commissioners or the deputy commissioners. I assume that I am right about that. I am getting more confirmation than the Government Front Bench is getting, but I should be grateful for a yes or a no.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling me the answer. The answer is yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 102, line 29, after ("is") insert—
("(a) reimbursed by the Scottish Ministers in pursuance of section 12(9), (Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland)(8) or 135(6); or
(b)")
The noble Lord said: The government amendments in this group fulfil commitments given during the Report stage of the Bill in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in response to similar amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. The amendments relate to the electoral commission's functions in respect of local government boundaries and local government elections in Scotland. These are of course devolved matters under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. As such, it is properly a matter for the Scottish Executive and Parliament to decide whether these functions should be conferred on the electoral commission.
Amendment No. 54 inserts a new clause after Clause 17. Noble Lords will have spotted that this new clause is in similar terms to Clauses 17 and 18. Those clauses empower the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Welsh Assembly respectively to transfer, by order, the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commissions in England and Wales to the electoral commission. The new clause confers on Scottish Ministers parallel powers to transfer to the commission the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland.
We see considerable benefits in one body being responsible for the review of all electoral boundaries. The merger of the functions of the Parliamentary and Local Government Boundary Commissions, under the aegis of the electoral commission, will lead to improved efficiency and greater effectiveness and coherence in the review of all boundaries, from ward level up to Westminster constituencies. It is right and proper that the decision to transfer these functions should rest with the responsible body in each case.
The amendments to Clauses 9, 12 and 135 similarly empower Scottish Ministers to confer on the electoral commission the functions specified in each of those clauses as they relate to local government elections in Scotland. I should add that all the order-making powers conferred on Scottish Ministers by these amendments are subject to the equivalent to the negative resolution procedure, thereby allowing the Scottish Parliament to have the final say.
Finally, government Amendment No. 19 makes a consequential change to Schedule 1. The amendment provides that any expenditure incurred by the commission in discharging any functions conferred on it by Scottish Ministers shall be reimbursed by the Scottish Executive.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. They have much the same theme as the government amendments, but despite that they are not ones that I can invite the Committee to support. As I have explained in the context of the government amendments, under the

1777
terms of the devolution settlement it is properly a matter for the devolved legislatures to determine the extent to which, if at all, functions in respect of devolved matters should be conferred on the electoral commission.
The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly may wish to invite the commission to review the conduct of referendums held on devolved matters. Similarly, Scottish Ministers may wish to consult the commission before making rules in respect of local government elections in Scotland. But in each case the decision must rest with the devolved administrations or legislatures, as appropriate. Clause 9 provides the mechanism by which the advice and assistance of the commission may be sought on such matters. But the important point here is that the initiative should come not from the commission but from the devolved administrations. Given the provisions of Clause 9, I would urge the noble Lord not to pursue his amendments and to support the government amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the government amendments. He will appreciate that my amendments were tabled before his. My intention in tabling them was to hold a space so that I could raise the issue of Scotland and why Scotland appeared to be excluded when there were clauses in the Bill for Wales and a clause in the Bill for Northern Ireland.
As the Minister said, the amendments concern the Local Government Boundary Commission. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, we have already had a brief discussion about the merits of these matters all being brought under the same umbrella. I came to the Committee armed with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. It states that,
"the Election Commission should have UK-wide authority especially since all aspects of election law (save for local government elections) are to be reserved for the UK Parliament and under devolution legislation".
The report goes on to recognise the importance of the commission being involved in electoral matters in all parts of the United Kingdom. We have already discussed that point, although the Committee has not agreed with me.
One point slightly puzzles me. It might have been tidier if the Scottish Parliament had been asked to decide this issue a few weeks ago. The Bill could then have been constructed on the basis that the electoral commission would deal with the matter. The Bill proposes instead that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly can make the decision at some time in the future. It might have been tidier and more sensible to ask them to debate the matter before the Bill started its progress through Parliament or even before it reached your Lordships' House. We could then have had a substantive clause making the issue clear. However, I am content with the way the provision is put. I cannot believe that the Scottish Parliament will do anything other than ask the electoral commission to take over this responsibility. I cannot believe that the
1778
Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly will do other than ask the electoral commission to do the same.
I think it is a pity that we did not clear the ground so that we could have incorporated the matter properly in the Bill rather than in the way the Minister has proposed. However, I am content with the amendments. I hope, and rather assume, that the Scottish Parliament will do what is suggested and take advantage of the electoral commission to deal with local government issues as well. I am content with the Minister's amendments. I shall not move mine, which were tabled to allow me to probe, "Why not Scotland?"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Speaker's Committee]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, leave out lines 9 to 34 and insert—

("(a) the member of the House of Commons who is Leader of the House;

(b) a member of the House proposed by the Leader of the Opposition,

(c) six Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown;

(2) The members of the Committee mentioned in subsection (2)(c) shall be appointed to membership of the Committee by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
(3) Schedule 2, which makes further provision in relation to the Speaker's Committee, shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether I can move the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lamont. Unfortunately, he is not able to be present and asked me whether I would move it in his stead. It is grouped with my amendment and the amendments all address the same issue. Therefore, I am sure that my speech will cover what my noble friend was going to say.
We now come to the question of the Speaker's Committee. Perhaps the Minister will explain when he comes to reply the role envisaged for the Speaker's Committee. I initially put down an amendment to oppose Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. I did that largely to have a discussion about the Speaker's Committee and what role it will play and what will be its relationship with the electoral commission. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on that.
My amendment and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lamont deal with the question of the composition of the committee. As the Bill stands, one member is to be the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I am not sure whether that position is currently held by a member of the governing party or whether that committee is one which is always chaired by a member of the governing party. Another member is to be the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would clearly be a member of the governing party. Another member is to be,
"a Member of the House of Commons who is a Minister of the Crown with responsibilities in relation to local government".

1779
He would be a member of the governing party. So we are possibly at three. Another five members are to be Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown. All five, or four, or three could be members of the governing party, this giving the governing party an overall majority on the Speaker's Committee.
No doubt the Minister will tell me that nothing is further from the Government's mind. I, of course, would believe him. But we are not legislating just for this Government. We are legislating for something that will be here for a while. I have suggested that when we come to the five Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown, we should add the words,
"at least four of whom must not be members of the governing party or parties".
The reason I have added "parties" is that at some time in the future—one never knows—we may follow the example of the Scottish Parliament (although perhaps after seeing it work no one will follow its example) and have a coalition down the corridor. So two of the political parties may form the government. In that case, I should certainly want the four members to be drawn from the other parties, those that do not form the governing party or parties.
My noble friend's amendment is more specific. He prefers to specify a different set of people: the Leader of the House of Commons, someone who is proposed by the Opposition, and six Members who are not Ministers, to be appointed by the speaker. My noble friend is obviously less suspicious than I am because he does not include the qualification that I propose. Dare I say in his absence that I believe that my amendment is superior?
I believe that I have explained the amendment perfectly well and my remarks are made to some extent for the record. I understand that the Speaker of the House of Commons has made her position clear. Much as I can appreciate that, my problem is that, redoubtable as she undoubtedly is, she will not be Speaker for ever. Therefore, I believe that this provision would be better in statute rather than depending on the ruling of the current order of the Speaker's office. Hence I believe that my amendment is preferable to that of my noble friend and I look forward to hearing the Minister accept it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): In proposing the amendment, I should point out for the purpose of good order that, if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, Amendment No. 21 would be pre-empted.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has spoken to what he described as a superior amendment—he is very good at moving superior amendments; he has a great deal of experience of doing so. The solution is readily to hand. The answer is not to accept either amendment, and I shall explain why.
1780
It is the Government's firm intention that the electoral commission should be as independent of the government of the day as our constitutional arrangements will allow. We certainly have no desire—and I should like this to be placed clearly on record—to use the arrangements for setting the commission's budget and approving its five-year plan—that is the role of the Speaker's Committee to assert governmental control over the commission's activities. That is not our intention at all. The Government have, in that spirit, accepted the proposal made by the Opposition in another place that the Speaker's Committee will be chaired by the Speaker. Great credit has been heaped on the Speaker for her independence and her robust and forthright manner. That is a tradition of the holder of that office.
Amendment No. 21 would require that of the five non ex-officio members of the Speaker's committee a t least four should be drawn from parties other than the party or parties of government. The intention is to ensure a balanced committee. That is a laudable objective. The amendment would not, however, necessarily guarantee a balanced committee. The mathematics would be upset in the unlikely event that the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee were not a member of the governing party.
The Government's view is that the appointment of members of the committee, other than those who are members by virtue of their office, should be a matter entirely for the Speaker to determine. The Bill does not require that the Speaker exercise the power of appointment so as to produce a committee which reflects the balance of parties in another place. That is an important point. On the contrary, the Speaker has already indicated that she intends to appoint one government Back-Bencher, three members from the main opposition party and one member from another opposition party. The committee will, as a result, be perfectly balanced. I hope that in the light of the Speaker's clearly stated intentions the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his "superior" amendment.
In approving the commission's budget and long-term objectives, the Speaker's Committee will have strategic oversight of the commission's activities. It seems perfectly sensible that those with responsibility for law and policy in these areas should have a role to play on the committee. That is why the Bill provides for the Home Secretary and the Minister for Local Government to be members of the committee as well as the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is not a question of asserting government control, but a matter of ensuring, importantly, that those with relevant knowledge and responsibilities are able to bring them to bear on the committee's deliberations. The effect of Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 would be to lose that element of the Government's proposals and a degree of accountability.
Finally, Amendment No. 23 concerns what happens if the Speaker is absent and unable to chair the committee. The Bill simply provides that the committee should appoint one of its number to fill the breach. Amendment No. 23 would require the

1781
committee to appoint a Deputy Speaker of the House to do so. I can see that in the absence of the Speaker it may be desirable that her place is taken by someone who is similarly neutral. On the other hand, Members of the Committee may consider that it is equally desirable that the committee is presided over by someone who is familiar with its business and its rationale. For that reason, I should prefer to retain the existing provision.
The noble Lord, with his usual wit, commended his "superior" amendment. I hope that in his genuinely superior way he will feel able to be persuaded by my comments and in a sense the government commitment to make sure that the committee is constituted in the way it is and is balanced and helps to ensure that those with the right expertise are on the committee. I invite him to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Fookes: I yield to no one in my admiration for the present Speaker of the other place, having worked directly under her as a Deputy Speaker in the other place in the previous Parliament. However, the principle remains valid that this provision will remain on the statute book beyond the period of time of the present Speaker. Therefore, it would be more prudent to have on the face of the Bill an absolute guarantee that there would be a proper balance. For that reason, I warmly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackay. I urge the Minister to think again about this point of principle.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am not certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will be fully satisfied with the explanations that he has received from the Minister. I am not complaining, but I get an uneasy feeling that much of this design is based on personalities as we know them. It is not certain that that happy relationship will exist in three to five years' time.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I should welcome—perhaps not this evening but on some future occasion—a clearer explanation as to what exactly the committee will do and what its exact relationship will be with the commission. The outline is there, but I am afraid that before we can be entirely satisfied we should like a further explanation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Minister may want to respond to those points after her has heard what I have to say. I am trying to find out whether the Neill committee advocated a Speaker's Committee. Perhaps I may put that question to the Minister.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, were present, she might say that if we need a committee of politicians to give a strategic oversight and look after the budgetary requirements, that removes some of the political neutrality argued by the Minister when we discussed the members of the electoral commission. His noble friend asked him whether there was not some sense in having some people who had at least been involved in politics and who might therefore be expected to know a little about the way in which
1782
elections and political parties work. Quoting my honourable friends in the other place, the noble Lord was rightly determined to stand with them against that proposition, and I understood his argument.
Regarding the Speaker's Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, I do not think that I received a very good answer as to exactly what it would do. "Strategic oversight" could be construed as doing a bit of checking to see how it is working. If seven politicians are to sit down to decide whether or not it is working, one begins to introduce politics into it, which is what one seeks to avoid.
I can understand that it should look after the budget. I certainly do not want the Treasury to do that. The Treasury would probably try to keep the budget as low as possible and tell the body to make 10 per cent cuts, or whatever, and justify every move that it made. That would be even worse—dare I suggest—than political control. I am content that a properly balanced Speaker's committee should look at the budget, but I remain a wee bit uneasy about "strategic oversight".
As to my amendment, I accept that in certain circumstances if the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee is a member of the Opposition there will not be a balance. Like my noble friend Lady Fookes, I accept absolutely the assurances of the Speaker about the composition of the committee. However, she will not be Speaker for ever. While that is fine as a start, I believe that the Government should contemplate how the Speaker's ruling can be put on a statutory basis. There are possible ways to do it. I do not want to write an amendment on my feet. However, if the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee is not a member of the governing party, or parties, there will be one less additional member from the opposition parties. I do not believe that it is beyond anyone's wit to draft an amendment to deal with this, and I suspect that it will not be beyond mine when we come to Report stage. I intend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for inviting me to make further reference at a later stage to the role and purpose of the Speaker's Committee. I am content to set out in greater detail exactly how we see that working, but it is a matter for further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the Speaker's Committee in relation to the report of the Neill committee. Lord Neill's committee makes the case for the Speaker's committee in the following terms:
"11.11 One of the main prerequisites of the independence of the Commission would be its independence of budget. A body whose budget was determined through a government department and which consequently had to fight for resources against competing priorities in government could never be perceived as truly independent. We therefore believe it is essential that a mechanism should be developed for setting the Commission's budget which stresses the Commission's independence while at the same time"—
I believe this to be the critical point—
"retaining a degree of accountability to Parliament for the proper expenditure of public funds".

1783
The report goes on to suggest that one possible model is the mechanism to set the budget of the National Audit Office. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the NAO's budget is approved by the Public Accounts Commission, which is established by Section 2 of the National Audit Act 1983. That is what we seek to mirror by creating a Speaker's Committee, and we hope that that proposal meets with the Committee's approval.
I take the point about the importance of balance which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. The Government believe that the preferred model set out in the amendments that have been tabled could lead to a situation in which there was an imbalance. However, in setting up the commission and seeking to establish a mechanism for further parliamentary accountability we must proceed on the basis of trust. Surely, the declaration of the Speaker is one to which we can all sign up. While we cannot fetter the discretion of future governments—that is neither possible nor right— there should be an acceptance by the parties that this is the way in which it should proceed in future. It would be unfortunate if we were forced to place that on the face of the legislation.
I shall reflect carefully on what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said. Without commitment, I shall give the matter further thought. At the moment we are content with the way in which the Speaker has conducted the matter and set out her views about the future. I am pleased to note that at least this evening the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord makes the budgetary position much clearer at the second attempt. I shall look at this matter further because I am not certain that the position is stable in the long term. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Speaker's Committed]
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appointment of Electoral Commissioners and Commission chairman]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 2, line 46, at end insertߞ
("(3A) A person may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner if the person—

(a) is a member of a registered party;

(b) is an officer of a registered party or of any accounting unit of such a party;

(c) holds a relevant elective office (within the meaning of Schedule 6); or

1784

(d) has at any time within the last ten years—

(i) been such an officer as is mentioned in paragraph (b), or

(ii) held such an office as is mentioned in paragraph (c), or

(iii) been named as a donor in the register of donations reported under Chapter III or IV of Part IV.").

Page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) In this section "registered party"—

(a) includes (in relation to times before the appointed day for the purposes of Part II of this Act) a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998; and

(b) in subsection (3)(b) also includes (in relation to times before 1st April 1999) any political party.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, both of which were spoken to with Amendment No. 5.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Reviews of electoral and political matters]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) the age at which people may be eligible to stand for election;").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No 29 seeks to add to Clause 5 of the Bill one matter that the commission must keep under review and report upon to the Secretary of State. This matter has been the subject of discussion and a degree of consensus among the political parties but nothing has ever happened. I refer to the age at which an individual is eligible to stand for election. Recognition of the fact that 18 is the age at which people have the right to vote and to do virtually everything else, with the possible exception of matters such as adoption—in that case, I believe that a person must be 21—is long overdue. By and large, it is accepted that 18 is the age at which people are responsible. Therefore, a person of that age is entitled to be a representative.
The fourth report of the Home Affairs Select Committee was debated on 7th December 1998 when I drew the House's attention to this matter. I do not rehearse all the arguments then raised, but for those noble Lords who were not present at the time I refer to paragraph 123 of the report of the Select Committee:
"Professor Blackburn suggested the minimum age should be reduced to 18 (the minimum voting age) since there was no sound reason to distinguish between the maturity required to have a vote and the maturity required to represent the electorate in the Commons … This view was supported by the spokesmen for the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties".
The Conservative Party did not take a strong stand against it either. A personal view was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Surprisingly, the committee said that there was an argument for reducing the age of candidates to 18 but on balance did not recommend the change.
The commission needs to keep this matter under review as a matter of urgency. There is perhaps greater urgency in the field of local government, where so

1785
many services are provided to young people; for example, those still in education and those in temporary housing. Young people are those on whom the New Deal is focused. People aged 18 to 24 have a particular perspective on the world which I believe deserves a voice. By the age of 30 many people are car owners. They are in permanent homes. They often have a stable job and a young family. I contend that there is a greater difference between those aged 18 and 30 than between 30 and 55. If their birthday falls in the wrong place, the effect of the law as it stands is to exclude people often until their middle 20s
It is urgent for the commission to keep the issue under review. Although I am concerned particularly with the younger age limit, it should keep under review all issues as regards age. This may be an era in which anti-ageing genes mean that an upper age limit is not applicable. On the other hand, if more people, sadly, develop Alzheimer's the age limit may need to be reduced. The commission should consider and report on both ends of the spectrum. The political parties should not pay mere lip service to the wish to hear younger representatives taking part in decision-making rather than acting as observers. We encourage them to take part in political debate but do not allow them to do so in their own right. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I support the amendment. I have never seen the point of having a democracy in which one limits the qualifications of the people whom one elects—apart from fairly obvious limitations on people who are in prison, and so on.
There are strong reasons for limiting the qualifications of those who elect: they should have a certain maturity. Having done that, one has established the fact that one has a democracy whose electorate is capable of choice. That choice may be wrong but, if necessary, it should be allowed to choose wrongly.
Noble Lords will remember that considerable efforts were expended in seeking to limit the residential qualifications of people who were elected to various councils. I always thought that that was a very bad thing too. We should give the widest possible scope to those who wish to stand for election and are allowed to do so, while limiting the qualifications of those who elect.
Lord Norton of Louth: I, too, have tremendous sympathy with the amendment. I am a longstanding supporter of reducing the qualifying age for election to 18.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments. We have heard several already. Perhaps I may call attention to a detailed article in the journal, Public Law, in 1980. The most powerful argument is the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley: because it extends voter choice. As a general rule, electors should be free to elect whoever they want. It is their responsibility. It is not for us to impose restrictions on them. That is a powerful case.
1786
The arguments are different from those employed for lowering the voting age. The two do not have to be the same. If one has a differential age, it is more logical to have a higher age for voting than for standing for election to public office.
I have tremendous sympathy for the motivation underlying the amendment. I have a problem with the amendment because I am not sure that it is the best way to achieve that goal. I am not sure that the commission should consider the issue. We should grasp the nettle and bring forward a Bill to reduce the qualifying age for standing for election. We have rehearsed the arguments. I should like to see the age limit reduced rather than pass the responsibility to the commission to review the issue. Indeed, I have toyed with the idea of bringing forward a Private Member's Bill on the subject.
I welcome the amendment as a way of putting the issue on the agenda. The noble Baroness has raised the issue previously in this Chamber. I look forward, therefore, to the Government's response on the matter.
Viscount Astor: I took part in the debate in December 1998 when we discussed whether the age for standing for election should be lowered. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—he answered for the Home Office—and I were in perfect agreement on the subject: we did not think that it was a good idea.
I am intrigued that my noble friend said one should be able to stand for office at an earlier age and vote at an older age. I do not understand his logic.
Lord Norton of Louth: I shall endeavour to enlighten my noble friend. The criteria on which the argument is based are completely different. With the voting age one is giving the power to all. One is saying, "You are able to exercise that vote however mature or not you are". It is a universal application. As regards standing for election, the electors make the choice. One is talking about two completely separate matters.
Viscount Astor: I knew that I should never have asked the question of my noble friend! I am extremely grateful for his answer. It explains why he is an academic and I am not.
I have a more serious objection in principle. For a number of years we have been encouraging further education. There are forums within university systems for people to play a part in political life. I do not think that those in further education should be encouraged to rush off to stand as councillors, MPs, and so on. We should be sending the wrong message. The idea of an 18 year-old suddenly wanting to become an MP almost fills me with horror. Perhaps someone who wants to do so at 18 should be disbarred for a number of years on principle!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Did not the leader of the noble Lord's party want to become an MP at the age of 15?
Viscount Astor: He may have done, but he was over 21 when he became an MP. We all want to play a part

1787
in politics. The Liberal Democrats have always wanted to encourage the young. Perhaps they think that they can grab people when they are young and innocent. It is not too cynical to say that some of the major parties have thought, "Well, when they grow up at 21 they will join a proper party". However, I do not wish to continue too far on that theme!
There are serious issues to be considered about the age at which we want people to take part in events at political levels. That is not necessarily a matter for the commission but for Parliament. Therefore we on these Benches cannot support the noble Baroness.
Lord Bach: First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having so skilfully got this matter on to the agenda today. We have had a fascinating debate. I also congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, more for his bravery than his wisdom, I think, in taking on the various parties in this House.
I shall not be particularly brave. Indeed, I do not intend to speak as to the merits or otherwise of the arguments that the noble Baroness put forward so skilfully, aided and abetted by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and others. I shall address myself to the question whether the words of the amendment should be added to Clause 5. The Neill committee recommended that the electoral commission should have the duty to advise the Government on the modernisation and revision of electoral law. It will be one of its most important functions, I venture to suggest. Clause 5 gives effect to that recommendation and places the commission under a duty to keep various matters under review and from time to time to report to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 29 would add to that list the age at which people stand for election. It is clearly right that this is a matter to which the commission's remit should extend. However, we believe that Clause 5 as drafted already covers that. Subsection (1)(a) provides that the commission shall keep under review, and from time to time report to the Secretary of State on:
"such matters relating to elections to which this section applies as the Commission may determine from time to time".
That would—and I hope that the noble Baroness will listen carefully to the words I am about to use—certainly include the age at which people stand for election. However, it would be for the commission to decide whether the issue required its attention.
I also draw attention to subsection (1)(g), which invites the commission to keep under review and to report on if it wishes the law relating to the matters mentioned in each of the paragraphs (a) to (f). That is clearly relevant in this context.
We do not believe that it is desirable to make separate provision for each and every possible matter relating to elections that the commission should be able to address. It would be a very long list indeed.
1788
Therefore, while expressing no views on the merits of the case that the noble Baroness argued, I invite her to withdraw her amendment on the basis that It is not necessary.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I feel somewhat reassured by the fact that the commission should include in its remit the question of age. However, I would have felt more reassured if the provision had been placed on the face of the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I believe that this is an important matter. The noble Lord believed that a Bill was merited rather than the commission choosing to consider the issue at some long time in the future.
The Conservatives' position on the issue does not surprise me. Their belief that standing for election is detrimental to the education of people in further education is not an argument. Many of the people not in further education after 18 are probably the greater users of local government services. I do not believe that age necessarily equals wisdom or the abilily to be a good local or national representative.
However, I am grateful for the Minister's reassurances and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again at 8.30 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.33 to 8.30 p.m.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert ("or for the purpose of assisting members of the Northern Ireland Assembly connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties").
The noble Lord said: Clause 5 provides for the electoral commission to keep under review and report on various electoral and political matters, including the regulation of the income and expenditure of political parties. Subsection (3) excludes for the scope of such reviews certain devolved matters, including the funding of political parties under Section 97 of the Scotland Act which is the Scottish equivalent of Short or Cranborne money.
The funding of political parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly is also a devolved matter and we therefore need to add such funding arrangements to the list of excepted matters in Clause 5(3). Amendment No. 30 aims to do just that. It would clearly be inappropriate for a public body operating in a reserved area to encroach into matters devolved to either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh or Northern Ireland assemblies. However, while the commission will not be able to review Northern Ireland Short money on its own initiative, it will be open to the commission to advise on such matters as the request of the Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the provision of Clause 9.

1789
Amendment No. 322 to Schedule 20 covers similar territory. Paragraph 12 of that schedule amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in order to clearly establish that the whole subject matter of this Bill, with the exception of Part IX, is an excepted matter. The amendment serves to ensure that the arrangements for the funding of political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly are not thereby treated as an excepted matter. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe I understand what the Minister has just said. Am I right in believing that the Short money at the other end and the Cranborne money, as it is called, here are outwith the compass of the electoral commission? We are excluding Northern Ireland and Scotland. Are we excluding Wales as well? Do we not have the equivalent of Short money in Wales? Perhaps more importantly, does the provision cover the Short money paid to the other place and to the opposition parties in your Lordships' House? That money is important for the funding of opposition parties. As the name suggests, it was started by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, when he was Ted Short. I suspect that at the time he was Leader of the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Cranborne introduced the provision in order to help the then Labour Opposition. I hope that they were deeply grateful. It is very important to the smooth running of the opposition parties not only in your Lordships' House but in the other place. I hope that the Minister is able to answer my question.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It is important to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on that point because initially there was great confusion when the Northern Ireland Assembly was established. There was some idea that it would be a beneficiary of what we colloquially call Short money. Like some others present, I was involved in the negotiations at the time of the Wilson government in bringing that about.
It appeared even this morning that a Northern Ireland Executive would be established. I understand now that the order has been withdrawn as has the Bill on policing. I believe that there has been some very serious hitch. It may be that while we had expectations this morning that everything would be back on the rails by the 22nd of this month, that now looks very doubtful. Irrespective of that, I support and welcome the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 30 and 322 although some of the clauses to which they are linked might require further examination. I know that my noble friend Lord Rogan has given careful study to those detailed matters.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asks a perfectly simple question. I am afraid that this is one of those occasions when I cannot provide him with a perfectly simple response. I am happy to undertake to write to him. In passing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for his support for these amendments. I hope that the Short money which
1790
is facilitated by the amendments does wonders for the political process in Northern Ireland which clearly needs as much encouragement as possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Commission to be consulted on changes to electoral law]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Involvement of Commission in changes in electoral procedures]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Clause 8 deals with the involvement of the commission in changes to the electoral procedures. We touched on this at Question Time today. It harks back to the Representation of the People Act which we passed earlier in the year. It deals with experiments conducted by various local authorities last week in local government elections in order to try to find ways to encourage more people to vote. When we were debating the Representation of the People Bill the Minister made it perfectly clear— and we agreed with him—that when the electoral commission was set up it should have a role to play in these experiments. This amendment fulfils the promise that the noble Lord made during discussion of the Representation of the People Bill.
However, I am querying why subsection (1)(a) of the clause uses the word "may". It states,
"The Commission may participate with any relevant local authority".
I believe that it should be an obligation both on the commission and on the local authority to involve each other. I am not necessarily saying that the commission should trigger an experiment although there may be circumstances in which it would be right for it to do so or perhaps say to an authority interested in experimenting, "We believe that it would be really useful if you did such and such an experiment rather than another experiment." It is clear from the experiments conducted last week that that old Scottish verdict of not proven is about the kindest thing one can say. I suspect that in some cases we can probably say, "Proven and really of no great effect at all." Let us consider, for example, the question of early voting. The expense which the authorities must have undertaken in order to open polling stations, if my recollection is right, in London almost a whole week before the poll seems to me to be out of all proportion to the results.
I have some figures which have been supplied, I believe, courtesy of the BBC website. They are not definite—there is a health warning on them—but I believe that they are a fair indication of what happened. In Blackburn, for example, early voting produced votes from 1·45 per cent of the electorate.

1791
In Chester, the figure was 1.8 per cent; in Coventry, 1.5 per cent; in Kingston-upon-Hull, approximately 1 per cent; Knowsley, interestingly enough, managed to attain 4·46 per cent; and Norwich, 3·17 per cent. The others were pretty low. Watford attained 3·5 or 4 per cent. However, the turnout in Watford, where a lot of experiments were conducted, was disastrously low.
I believe that I can remember saying to the Government that they should allow only one experiment in one place because they would never be able to work out which experiment had caused the hoped-for increase. I do not know what conclusion one can reach in respect of Watford. I am to some extent arguing against one of my arguments on a previous occasion—one must show fairness and balance in these matters—but I believe that Watford was one place which had a freepost. Yet I believe that the poll there was quite significantly down.
In London boroughs the result from early voting was the same. The Corporation of London achieved the best results: it managed 4·2 per cent. However, that is not a lot; it accounts for only 232 people. I suppose that it is the one place where one might have found people who were not present on polling day and who found it convenient to vote early. One wonders how many of those votes went to Mr Livingstone, given his view of the City.
The voting figures for all the London boroughs at which I am looking were very low. Newham achieved 2·2 per cent, and I believe that that is the highest figure. The rest achieved around 1 per cent: for example, 0·73 per cent at Westminster—a very low figure indeed. With figures as insignificant as those, I believe that one must conclude that the experiment with early voting has probably proved that it has no effect at all on the total turnout. I believe that the conclusion about early voting must be that it is an experiment that can now be put back into its pigeon-hole.
I do not know about some of the other experiments that took place, but I have some figures on postal voting. As we said at Question Time today, there is no doubt that postal voting has led to an increase. The increased entitlement to postal voting certainly increased the number of applications in Amber Valley, Eastleigh, Gloucester and Milton Keynes. However, one must question how many were returned. I believe that we shall know eventually, but I do not know from this piece of paper. The areas with an all-postal vote certainly registered an increase in turn-out. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
As I mentioned to the noble Lord at Question Time, with regard to all-postal voting I believe that one would also have to look very carefully at the level of honesty, or, rather, dishonesty, that takes place. I believe that easy postal voting is very good, but I also believe that it is open to much abuse. It would be a very moral and upright person who, having received a postal vote while his wife and son had gone on holiday (this is rather sexist) leaving the poor man at home to work, did not decide to register his wife's and son's
1792
vote at the same time as his own. That would not be at all right, but it might not be so bad if they were all intending to vote for the same party. However, one never knows in these matters.
The temptation for people to use a vote that has come into their house, even though it is not theirs, is quite high. I suspect that we shall have to consider that issue. I do not know how one investigates such a situation because, it has to be said, nobody will own up to acting in that way. As the noble Lord admitted when we discussed the Representation of the People Bill, it is pretty well impossible to ascertain how much fraud goes on unless people vote in place of someone who turns out to be dead or to have left the country. I live in the constituency of Glasgow Govan where, certainly, a fair degree of dubious tactics take place.
The point that I make is that those experiments are important. The Government rightly attached importance to them because even the improvement from postal ballots did not achieve one result (he said looking quickly!) above the 40 per cent level of turnout. Therefore, the experiment was not startlingly successful, but anything that we do to try to improve turn-out must meet with our approval.
That is where I believe that the electoral commission is so important. It must work alongside authorities when they carry out those experiments. I do not believe that it is any good to say only that the electoral commission may participate. I believe that it must participate right from the beginning so that, as the experiment is set up, it is examined by the commission to ensure that it has been properly run and that it will be properly validated. There is no point in conducting an experiment unless one has worked out how it is to be validated. To be honest, I do not believe that local authorities are in the best position to do that. They do not have the breadth of expertise that the electoral commission will have.
Currently, I do not believe that we can look at another body. However, once the electoral commission is set up, I believe that it should be wholly and fully involved. No experiment should take place without the electoral commission looking at it and, so to speak, ticking it off and, afterwards, together with the authorities, examining the results and analysing them. I have no objection to a local authority writing its own report and sending it to the Home Secretary. However, I believe that the electoral commission should write either a joint, or its own, report and also send it to the Home Secretary. I wonder how long it will take before those reports are, first, available to the Home Secretary and then, consistent with freedom of information—the subject of another Bill with which we shall deal shortly—reported to the public.
I believe that that is important. I also believe that the electoral commission—when it has been set up—will have to consider whether it can look back at the London mayoral elections, in which the number of spoilt ballot papers appears to have been very high I understand, for example, that Bexley and Bromley had something like 10,000 spoilt ballot papers; that is 6·9 per cent of the votes cast. I believe that this

1793
afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, indicated, if I read between the lines correctly, that the number of spoilt papers in the seat for which he was standing was higher than the number of votes between himself and the winning candidate. Or, rather—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was the winning candidate. I felt that he lacked the confidence of the winning candidate when he explained that, but I understand that he is simply modest. However, the point has been made that his majority was smaller than the number of spoilt ballot papers. It is much more honourable that he raised the question in that way rather than the other way round.
It is a very important point. It cannot be right that we have an electoral system in which that situation can arise, and we must attend to it. Whether it is the fault of the system or the instructions, those are matters in which the electoral commission must become involved. That is why I am doing what is often looked upon as a little game by any opposition; that is, change "may" to "shall" and "shall" to "may". In this case, I do it very deliberately and I mean it. I believe that the commission must participate and, therefore, the milder "may" should be replaced by the firmer "shall". I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said about experimentation. In particular, I have in mind postal votes as an alternative to one going to a polling station, wherever that polling station may be.
I have always supported the proposition of postal votes for those who find it impossible to get to a polling station for a variety of legitimate reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has drawn attention to the possibility of some misdemeanours in the recent London elections. I have reason to believe that in certain areas, votes were stolen on a fairly large scale. It is quite easy to do that in, for example, a block of flats with one common post-box. In some cases, the votes that went astray, were misused or stolen may have run into double figures in a single, relatively small block of dwellings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it is early days yet as regards the commission but it would do no harm just to suggest to it that experiments sometimes have very serious drawbacks. It would be prudent not to embark wholesale on certain experiments until all the necessary safeguards are in place.
Baroness Fookes: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mackay. It is extremely important that the commission should be involved in all these pilot schemes, in association with the local authorities.
However, if the Government insist on keeping the "may" rather than the "shall", what would the position be if the commission wanted to be involved
1794
with a local authority scheme and the local authority refused? Who would have the powers in those circumstances?
Lord Norton of Louth: I rise briefly to support my noble friend's amendment. He made a very telling point about it.
Here we are setting up a body which has particular skills to look at electoral matters and it would be remiss not to draw on that on a consistent basis because this electoral commission will have skills which local authorities lack.
To determine the effect of these experiments requires fairly sophisticated tools. It is not sufficient to look only at where there is an increase in turn-out. That will not demonstrate a causal relationship between the experiment and the increase in turn-out. That could be for other reasons. It is necessary to look at the turn-out in adjoining authorities. There may be a 2 per cent increase where there has been an experiment but next-door, there is a 3 per cent increase and there has been no experiment.
There is a problem if it is the local authorities which must present the reports because they are likely to look at the matter in a fairly insular way and do not necessarily have the skills to undertake the task. They may not have the resources because there may be cost implications if the necessary surveys are to be undertaken; namely, to ask people why they are voting. That cannot necessarily be done, on the face of it, by looking only at the voting figures.
It is a fairly sophisticated task. The body which has been set up under this Bill will have the skills to undertake it. Local authorities do not. In order to look at the matter consistently, that duty should be imposed on the commission so that it can do that in relation to all the experiments and not on the basis of choice.
Lord Bach: It has been an extremely interesting debate on a very topical subject. Not surprisingly, the Government have not yet reached any conclusions, firm or otherwise, on the pilot schemes which were experimented with during the course of the past week or so. One reason is that the figures are only now coming to light and the figures as such do not in themselves necessarily give the correct answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made clear.
We can go this far, that the all-postal ballots scheme was the most encouraging of all the schemes which took place. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that there is a ward in Stevenage, I believe, where the turn-out was 49 per cent, compared with 37 per cent in the rest of the borough. So that was over the 40 per cent which he mentioned. But on the face of it, the most encouraging sign so far is the all-postal ballots scheme.
There is little else that I want to say today, following the Starred Question and the discussion which we have had about the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the moral male who would be filling in the votes when he should not be for his wife and son who were on holiday and he said that

1795
he thought it might be better if they voted for the same party. I am not sure that it would not be slightly more moral if they voted for different parties in those circumstances. But perhaps it does not matter because I am sure that there are not many people like that.
Clause 8 extends the functions of the commission so as to include a role in relation to pilot schemes. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 makes provision for local authorities to bring forward proposals for pilot schemes for the purpose of testing electoral innovations, such as early voting and electronic voting at local government elections.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, 32 local authorities ran 38 pilots at the recent local elections in England. We shall have to wait before we come to any firm conclusions about them and as to whether any particular innovations should be rolled out nationally. But initial indications suggest that there were mixed results.
It is clearly right that the electoral commission should have a role in future pilots. This Bill already provides the commission with a broad remit in relation to electoral law, as was said in our debate on Amendment No. 29, and with a role in providing advice and assistance to other authorities in relation to electoral matters. It will also have an important role in promoting public participation in the democratic process. Those functions very clearly dovetail with the rationale behind the arrangements for the conduct of pilot schemes. The Bill therefore provides the commission with a clear role in relation to those arrangements.
Clause 8 provides that the commission may participate with a local authority in submitting proposals for a pilot scheme. We envisage that a local authority may wish to draw upon the knowledge and experience of the commission on the framing of the proposals and that the commission may have a particular interest in testing a particular innovation. Amendment No. 35, however, would require that the commission must participate with local authorities in the submission. We see no advantage in compelling the commission to co-sponsor each and every pilot scheme. We see some advantage in local authorities having the right, provided it is generally agreed by members of that local authority, to submit that it should have a pilot scheme in its area.
In any event, the idea that the commission must participate in the submission of proposals for pilot schemes sits rather oddly with the effect of Amendment No. 36, which would ensure that the commission had a role in scrutinising such proposals. In fact, this amendment adds little to the provisions of the Bill.
I would draw the noble Lord's attention to paragraph 14 of Schedule 20 which makes a number of amendments to Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. First, where the commission does not co-sponsor a pilot scheme, the Secretary of State will he required to consult the commission before making an order providing for the implementation of a pilot scheme put forward by a local authority on its own. So
1796
the commission will be in a position to scrutinise and offer its views on proposals which it has not itself been involved in preparing.
Secondly, the commission will itself be responsible for the preparation of the report on a particular pilot scheme which will include an assessment of the scheme's success. The 2000 Act does not provide for the "approval" of such an assessment. However, Section 11 of the Act enables the Secretary of State to roll-out a successful pilot scheme to local government elections generally. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 20 to this Bill amends Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 so as to provide that an order under that section may be made only on the recommendation of the electoral commission. So hidden away in the schedules of the Bill we go some way to meet the demands and wishes of a number of noble Lords. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for drawing my attention to Schedule 20. I am not sure whether I read that far, but as I have scribbled out something in the middle of page 179 I must have. Perhaps I did not realise the significance of the two amendments to the Representation of the People Act. From the Minister's explanation and from my brief read of it, I understand that the electoral commission will be fully involved if the Secretary of State ever decides to roll out an order—the most vital position—and that he would do so only on the recommendation of the electoral commission. That is good. I thank the Minister for drawing my attention to that. That goes some way to satisfy me.
If the electoral commission has to make a recommendation it will have to study the details of the pilot scheme before it can come to a conclusion. The reality will be that the electoral commission will look at every scheme just in case the Secretary of State decides to roll out one of them. It would be a pretty foolish local authority that did not involve the electoral commission in any experiment that it was running. The Minister has gone some way towards meeting my concerns and those of my noble friends. On that satisfied note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
COMMISSION TO GIVE ADVICE ON WORDING OF QUESTION IN A REFERENDUM
(" . The Commission shall, at the request of the sponsor or a Bill for an Act to provide for a referendum under section 97, give advice on the wording of the question or questions to be employed in that referendum.").

1797
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 37, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 225. If we are to have referendums it is important that they are conducted in a manner that is professional, rigorous, consistent and neutral. I believe that there will be general assent to that proposition. The electoral commission, under the terms of the Bill, is to be set up to assist in fulfilling those criteria. It is to make reports on the administration of referendums; it is to keep under review, and may issue reports on, matters relating to referendums; and it may issue advice on referendums, at least to certain bodies. I believe that the Bill should go further.
We are setting up a body that clearly is to have knowledge on the conduct of referendums, yet we are not explicitly drawing upon the services of that body to assist in one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, tasks involved in any referendum: drawing up the question that is to be put to the people in that referendum.
At Second Reading I touched upon the problems involved in setting the question. It is crucial that the question is both neutral and unambiguous. Ensuring that a question is free of bias—not simply political bias—can be extremely difficult. At Second Reading one of my noble friends spoke of the need to produce a clear question to which people could answer a simple yes or no. My understanding is that that is not what one should do. There is no difficulty in agreeing that the question should be clear, but there is a problem in inviting a yes or no response. I gather that there is a propensity for some people to want to be positive and therefore to vote yes, which builds in a certain bias to the process. It is far better to put propositions and to ask voters to indicate with which one they agree.
Ensuring that a question is unambiguous is also a difficult task. I suspect that if the Minister wanted informed assent to that point, he need look no further than to his noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who in a previous incarnation in market research had to wrestle with that kind of problem. At Second Reading I touched on the problem of ensuring that the question does not permit of different interpretations. I drew attention to research that found a notable element of "mistaken" voting in some state referendums in the USA; that is, people voting contrary to how they thought they had voted. If that phenomenon is to be avoided, the question has to be clear and unambiguous. That may require pilot surveys and may not necessarily be achieved by debate alone in a legislative chamber.
Clearly, there is a case for drawing upon a body capable of offering informed advice. We are creating such a body under the terms of the Bill. I appreciate that this amendment is not necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the Neill committee but I believe it to be a reasonable and logical amendment in terms of what the Bill seeks to achieve.
Under Clause 9 the commission may offer advice and assistance on those matters in which it has skill and experience but it may do so only to relevant
1798
bodies. The relevant bodies are listed in Clause 9(5), and the British Parliament is not included, although every other national parliament is. Clause 9(3)(b) empowers the commission to,
"provide advice and assistance to other persons which is incidental to, or otherwise connected with, the discharge by the Commission of their functions".
That may be taken to encompass giving advice on the wording of any question in a referendum, but it is not clear that it does so. I want to make the point explicit.
My amendment provides only that the commission shall give advice when requested to do so on the wording of a question. There is no requirement that that advice has to be accepted. The final say remains, as it must, with Parliament. The amendment seeks not to limit Parliament but to assist it in determining the question in any referendum.
Amendment No. 225 provides that the sponsor of a referendum Bill shall certify that the commission has been consulted on the question to be asked. It is up to the sponsor to decide what to do on the basis of that advice. Doubtless Parliament will want to know what use has been made of the advice.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, indicated that the Government did not have a closed mind on the subject so long as any amendment did not give a decision-making power to the commission. I hope that is a fair representation of the Minister's position. I have no problems with the caveat that he entered. In the light of the argument that I have advanced, I hope that the Minister will give the amendment a fair wind. If he accepts it as it stands, I shall be delighted. If he indicates that it requires redrafting, my basic point will be proved, as I did not seek advice on the wording. I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I rise to support the principle behind this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said, the Minister indicated some flexibility at Second Reading so I hope that we shall hear more on that today. Ultimately, the question itself has to be the responsibility of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, I do not believe anyone should fear that this amendment takes away from that. I feel that that point should be stressed in case the wrong interpretation is made.
However, the issue is complex. We must take care to avoid multi-option questions and that the questions cannot be vulnerable to alternative meaning, as has happened not in this country but elsewhere. Those are compelling reasons why it should be tried and tested by an independent body to ensure that its regulation is correct. I hope that the Minister will give a fair wind to this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall speak to Amendment No. 229 which I have tabled in this group of amendments. It deals with the same issue; namely, the nature of the question to be asked. However, I deal with it in a rather more vigorous way than does my noble friend, in that my amendment would make it

1799
mandatory to obtain the approval of the commission before a Bill containing provisions for a referendum could be laid before either House of Parliament.
Having listened to my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, it is clear that they would not agree with my argument that the commission should be the body to take the decision rather than Parliament. I must say that it is probable that my noble friend and the noble Baroness are right about that—the final and fundamental approval should rest with Parliament—but I suspect that, given the kind of conditions that my noble friend's amendment would lay down, Parliament would be foolish not only to consult the commission but also to take on board what the commission had to say.
This is an important issue. If one is to have referendums then the question itself is one of the key elements. I do not need to labour the point, but if one changes the nature of the question, one can change the answer. I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, when she says that multi-option questions should never be tried in referendums in this country. At this time of night I shall not bore noble Lords with examples from other countries where multi-option referendums have not worked at all, but those examples are on the record.
Even single questions, where the question could be open to misinterpretation, must be avoided. Twice in today's debates in Committee we have discussed the London elections where clearly a great many people did not understand the instructions. I would guess that that is where most of the spoiled papers came from. People were offered two votes and told that they "must" or at least "should" vote twice. The implication was that one vote should go in one column and another vote in the other column. I am not registered in London so I did not vote, but according to people who did vote and whom I know understand forms, documents and even Acts of Parliament—as was the case with one person who told me about this, a lawyer—they were just about to obey the instruction when they decided that it could not be right. Two votes had to be cast in two separate columns. I do not know if that is a fair reflection, but I then met another London voter who volunteered exactly the same information.
Clearly there was a problem, although I am sure that many very clever people thought that they had written the voting instructions in the clearest possible way. However, it is obvious that they had not written them in the clearest possible way. I suspect that the reason that happened was that those people had had no experience of these matters.
That is where the electoral commission would come in. It will be in a position to take advice and learn lessons from other parts of the world, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Norton. It will be able to acquire expertise and, because it will know that referendums will form an important part of its business, it will be in a position to undertake pilot work to ensure that the question is indeed unambiguous. The issue of referendums is the most
1800
important one here. That is because, frankly. I suspect that if we were not anticipating the advent of referendums in our system the need for an electoral commission would not be nearly as pressing.
Indeed, the first appreciable pressure for an electoral commission was expressed in a report from a joint body set by up the Electoral Reform Society and the Constitution Unit: the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. I should not like to embarrass her, but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, served on that commission. She will recall that at the time when the Scottish and Welsh referendums were set up I was insistent that some of the recommendations of that commission should be taken on board. Interestingly enough, at paragraph 107 the report concludes that,
"The final decision on the wording could he made by the Government confirmed by Parliament (on the basis of a Government's proposal), drawing on the advice of the Independent Commission".
That is almost too weak. My noble friend's approach is the right one and, on reflection, I am probably being too vigorous. I am attempting to take power away from Parliament, which I would never dream of doing.
I believe my noble friend's approach is a better one than mine. I should like to hear the Minister say that the Government will come forward with something along the lines of my noble friend's amendment on Report in order to make sure that the electoral commission has a clear role in devising the question.
One of the important points about a referendum is that members of the public and the parties involved in it must be satisfied that it is run fairly so that the loser will accept the result. That is crucial in referendums. We shall no doubt discuss a number of factors later in the Bill which are part of building up that confidence. The most important of all may be that the question asked is fair and the answer achieved is therefore clear and fair.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the points made by both my noble friend and, perhaps more importantly when we come to these matters, his noble friend, and give us some indication—possibly for the first time today—that he will either accept the amendment or take it away and come back with a better one.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I may have a solution to the problem put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I am in favour of and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lo rd Norton.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would like to make the provision obligatory; he would like the commission to override Parliament. I suggest that the middle way is to make certain, not that it is obligatory, but that the advice is made public. The general public and the legislature will then know what has been

1801
suggested and either accepted or rejected. That might almost meet the problem. I commend it to the Government.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. My noble friend Lord Rogan and I survived two referendums where, in one case, the question was settled by a government department and, in the other, more recent case, the question was set by agreement with a foreign government. Some of us protested mildly about that idea but were told, "You must not rock the boat because you will send the wrong signal." So we had to cave in, to our shame.
Problems arise with regard to the commission being restricted to the role of tabling a draft which can then be mangled by some other authority and finally approved by Parliament. I do not take away from the sovereignty of Parliament. I suggest there is need for an impartial, powerful, firm body to do more than table a draft. It should bring forward a draft in such a way that anyone opposing it has to give good solid reasons why they disagree with it. In that way we would achieve a much fairer result. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, we would achieve a result broadly acceptable to the electorate in general.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have been sitting here reflecting on all that has been said in the Chamber this evening. It reminds me of what brought me into politics—a referendum.
There was an issue in the village where I was brought up, Great Bentley, as to whether or not a village hall should be built on the village green. My mother was on one side of the argument and I was on the other. A referendum was held. The beauty of that referendum, as I recall, was that it was a simple one to determine. She lost, and I won. I have reflected a lot since then on referendums being a good way of resolving issues. I know it is not something that always finds favour in your Lordships' Chamber, but it certainly helped on that occasion.
One of the last things I did in local government was to propose a referendum on the potential location of a football ground. We went for a simple approach under legal advice but without the benefit of an electoral commission, and I was encouraged. It was suggested by the local Green Party that we should have a multi-option referendum. We rejected that motion. I am pleased that that is something which your Lordships hold as being important. In retrospect, I rather wish that I had made the acquaintance of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, because I am sure that he would have fuelled me with all the relevant arguments to resist that somewhat better than I did at the time.
We have before us three suggested new clauses that would confer on the electoral commission a role in relation to the questions included in a Bill for a referendum. As the sponsors of the new clauses have explained, the new clauses seek their target in somewhat different ways. It is not often that the noble
1802
Lord, Lord Mackay, disowns his own argument, but it was an enjoyable experience. Indeed, to hear him advance someone else's argument was even more enjoyable. However, it is right that we look at the principles involved.
The idea that the electoral commission should have a role in relation to a referendum question is one that caught the attention of many noble Lords during Second Reading. It is an intuitively attractive notion. As we made clear in another place, the Government see some attraction in it. I believe that I can say that we intend to continue our consideration of this issue, taking account of what has been said this evening, and with, perhaps, a view to bringing forward our own amendment at a later stage. There are some bear traps and some of the contents of the amendments currently before the Committee do not represent the way to proceed.
Some countries have systems that allow a referendum to be held on the petition of a certain number of voters, without a special Act of Parliament to authorise it. A proposal for a similar scheme will actually come before this Chamber later in our proceedings. In such a scheme, it is obvious that a body is needed to administer the referendum in the widest sense. That would almost certainly include setting the question; otherwise, it must be accepted that there would be a risk that the question, or the consequences if an affirmative answer were given, would simply not make much sense.
However, under the system that we have a major national referendum will always be authorised by a special Act of Parliament. I do not believe that we would want to do anything that would undermine that fundamental principle. Indeed, I think that there is a degree of consensus on that point. The terms of the Bill, including the question to be asked, will be the subject of keen debate in both Chambers and, no doubt, in the country. In those circumstances, everything will be very much in the open. The referendum campaign organisations, which will be limbering up, will be quick to draw points to the attention of their sympathisers in Parliament, but Parliament will then decide.
That system has worked well in the past. Even with hindsight, I do not believe that anyone would he able to show that any of the questions asked in past referendums has been misleading or loaded. No government would do themselves much service on a matter likely to be the subject of intense political debate by trying to push through what one might say is a "phoney" referendum question. Nor, in my opinion, would any group opposing the wording of a referendum do itself much good by seeking to cry foul in advance or to quibble over the form of the question without due cause. Some people have tried over the years to mount arguments of this kind about the referendum on Common Market membership in 1975. But I do not believe that anyone has ever been greatly impressed by those arguments.
Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that there is no obvious or gross mischief that necessarily needs to be addressed. Nevertheless, given that there is to be an

1803
electoral commission on the scene, the question can quite properly and reasonably be asked: why cannot some advantage be gained by involving it? What harm would it do? There is, of course, some risk and we may perhaps return to that point. The risk is that of getting the electoral commission—this is important—involved in a political quarrel. I suggest that we need to find a solution that avoids that risk.
Our present thinking is that that might be best achieved if the electoral commission were able to advise on whether a proposed referendum question will be clear to the electorate. I believe that that lies at the heart of this particular issue. It will be in everyone's interest that a referendum question should be clear and intelligible; indeed, I believe that intelligibility is the key in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made that clear. He said that such matters should be neutral, unambiguous and clear. Those are three important tests. It will be in everyone's interest if that point can be separated from when the referendum should be held and whether the question is essentially the right one to be put.
I believe that in 1975 there was much discussion on whether the ballot paper should refer to the European Community or to the Common Market. It would be a clear advantage to have impartial and objective advice on that kind of matter. However, that is a world away from Amendment No. 229. This amendment seems to me to be somewhat extraordinary. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, recognised that. It would make it unlawful, perhaps even impossible, for a Bill for a referendum to be introduced without the electoral commission being consulted—and not merely consulted, but giving its approval. That would undoubtedly undermine the role of Parliament and the freedom of Parliament to involve itself in active debate.
I hope that I have been sufficiently warm on this issue. As I say, we want to consider the matter further. I am happy to consider further discussion outside the Chamber. We wish to bring forward our own amendment. In doing so we should focus on intelligibility. I believe that is the matter that we are discussing. I also hope that in suggesting that noble Lords withdraw their amendments this evening they will feel confident of the Government's good intentions. I hope that the amendment that we bring forward will satisfy the points that have been raised. I suggest that the amendments be withdrawn and that we consider the matter further before we bring forward our own amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before my noble friend decides whether or not to withdraw his amendment I hope that I may say a few words. I think that we are all probably grateful for the Minister's comments. I am almost tempted to remind him of what his noble friend Lord Peston said at the beginning of his speech yesterday. It is perhaps a little unkind to do that now, but what we have just been told is a step in the right direction. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said,
"I for one should like to see a more dispassionate approach to the Committee stage. That involves greater tolerance and a willingness to listen on all sides. Government briefs with the word
1804
"resist" typed all over them can no longer be the norm. I have always believed, and my experience of Whitehall stretches back to nearly four decades, that that is for the convenience of officials, not Ministers, and they sell it as a kind of macho principle. But if Ministers have to be macho, no one can blame the Opposition or sundry Back-Benchers for showing what they can do by flexing their muscles".—[Official Report, 10/5/00; cols. 1575–1576.]
The Minister clearly took a lead either from his noble friend or from myself when I suggested that my amendment was not perfect by any manner of means and that I would resist it if I was the Government Minister.
I fully accept the arguments that have been made against my suggestion. However, if my noble friend wished to test the opinion of the Committee on his amendment I would certainly support him. However, I suspect that he will not test the opinion of the Committee but will test the Minister by accepting the invitation to withdraw the amendment and see what the Minister brings forward at Report stage. I certainly look forward to that as I believe that it will go a long way to improve this part of the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am most grateful for what has been said by speakers on all sides of the Chamber and for the support for the amendment. I take the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Molyneaux. My Amendment No. 225 was intended to move somewhat in that direction although I realise that it does not fully meet the point that by getting a sponsor to certify that he has consulted the commission it would he open to Members to ask what advice had been given. I recognise the problems inherent in that.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I do not want to spoil things in the light of his opening comments on what brought him into politics by saying that I am opposed to referendums. However, my view is that if we have them they should be clear and rigorous and there should be a body that can advise on the wording of questions. That is an important task, as the Minister conceded. I believe that the electoral commission is the most appropriate body to carry it out, not least because we have to ask what is the alternative body to carry out that task. I am grateful to the Minister for the points he has made and in the light of his positive response I have no hesitation in not pursuing the amendment at this stage. I look forward to seeing what is brought forward at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Giving of advice and assistance]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
("(8) The Scottish Ministers may by order provide that subsection (7) shall have effect as if the words "other than a local government election in Scotland" were omitted.
(9) Section 146(5) shall apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (8) as it applies to an order made by the Secretary of State under this Act and the reference in that

1805
section to enactments shall include a reference to any enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(10) The power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Policy development grants]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("political").
The noble Lord said: This rather large group of amendments makes important changes to the scheme in Part II of the Bill for the registration of political parties. These changes, however, address two quite separate issues. I shall endeavour to explain each of these in turn as simply as possible.
The first issue concerns the application of the controls on donations in Part IV to Northern Ireland parties. I do not wish to pre-empt the stand part debate on Clause 65, but it may assist the Committee if I explain some of the background to that clause in order that these amendments can be considered in their proper context.
The Neill committee gave special consideration to circumstances in Northern Ireland, including the Good Friday agreement. It concluded that there was no alternative but to exempt, at least for an initial period, Northern Ireland parties from the full rigour of its proposed scheme. The Government reluctantly accept that conclusion, and Clause 65 therefore includes a power to exempt Northern Ireland parties from the controls on donations in Part IV.
As currently drafted, the protection afforded by a Clause 65 order is to be made available only to those political parties which have one or more members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly or to the United Kingdom Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency. This definition of a Northern Ireland party obviously excludes a number of parties—including the Conservative Party—which unsuccessfully contest elections in Northern Ireland.
In responding to the draft Bill published last July, the Neill committee expressed concern on two grounds about the operation of Clause 65 as presently drafted. First, the committee pointed out that a political party which secures only one seat at an election and loses it in the next would, in losing that seat, also lose the protection conferred by Clause 65. The committee felt it to be unsatisfactory that the protection should vary in this way. Secondly, the committee argued that the clause placed those parties which had so far unsuccessfully fielded candidates at elections at an unfair disadvantage.
The Government fully accept that the protection afforded to Northern Ireland parties and their donors by a Clause 65 order should not be dependent on electoral success. It should be open to any party which contests an election in Northern Ireland to benefit
1806
from the terms of Clause 65. The amendments secure this objective by establishing a separate register of Northern Ireland parties. This is the effect of the new Clause 21 to be inserted by Amendment No. 63. Having established a separate register of Northern Ireland parties, Clause 65 can then define a Northern Ireland party by reference to a party registered in that register.
In broadening the definition of a Northern Ireland party we need to ensure that we do not create a situation in which parties operating on a United Kingdom-wide basis can escape the ban on foreign funding by channelling overseas donations through their Northern Ireland branches. In order to guard against this possibility, Amendment No. 180 provides that where an order made under Clause 65 is in force it would not be possible for a party registered in the Great Britain register to accept a donation from a party registered in the Northern Ireland register.
There are a couple of other amendments in this group relating to Clause 65 which are worthy of particular note. Amendment No. 179, which seeks to amend Clause 65 itself, makes it crystal clear that any order made under subsection (1) of the clause is to apply equally to every Northern Ireland party. It has been suggested that the exemption would apply only to Sinn Fein. This is not our intention. A donor to any Northern Ireland party may risk discrimination or intimidation, and it is therefore clearly right that all Northern Ireland parties should benefit from an exemption order.
Finally, on the Northern Ireland aspect of this group, Amendment No. 316 to Clause 146 adds the order-making power in Clause 65 to the list of delegated powers subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This fulfils an undertaking given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr O'Brien on Report in another place.
I turn now to the quite separate issue dealt with by these amendments; namely, the problem faced by the presence of wholly independent political parties operating in different parts of the United Kingdom but with the same or similar names. This problem is particularly acute for the Scottish Green Party.
The Scottish Green Party is a wholly separate political party from the Green Party in England and Wales. But because of the way the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 operates, the Scottish Green Party has been prevented from registering in its own right. That is essentially the result of the protection afforded by that Act to a party's registered name. Under the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) Order 1998, once a party has been registered it is not possible for another party to register with the name of an existing party qualified by words such as "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh". Accordingly, once the Green Party had registered, the Scottish Green Party could not register using that name.
I understand that for the purposes of the 1998 Act the Green Party and the Scottish Green Party have reached an accommodation which enables Scottish

1807
Green Party candidates to stand in Scottish elections with the agreement of the Green Party's nominating officer. While such a pragmatic solution is possible, given the limited purposes of the 1998 Act, such an arrangement cannot withstand the financial requirements placed on parties by the Bill. The Green Party can no more be expected to account for the income and expenditure of the Scottish Green Party than can the Conservative Party be expected to account for the income and expenditure of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats for the Liberal Party. Each of these is a wholly independent organisation which should be allowed to register and comply with the provisions of the Bill in its own right. These amendments will allow them to do so.
The key amendments are those to Clause 25. Parties applying for registration on the Great Britain register will be required to specify the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which the party wishes to be registered. The new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 103 makes transitional arrangements for existing registered parties. Under these arrangements it will be possible for a party to confine its registration to, for example, England and Wales. This would then enable a "sister party" to be separately registered in Scotland. It will of course be open to any party to take advantage of these new arrangements. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Rogan: I should like to speak about the impact of these amendments on Clauses 20 and 65 and the far-reaching effects which they may have.
As some Members of Committee may be aware, I am currently chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party, the largest political party in Northern Ireland. Thus I could argue that we need the most funds of all parties for politics in Northern Ireland. With local council, local assembly, Westminster and European elections, plus referenda, Northern Ireland parties are forced to go to the electorate more often than the remainder of the United Kingdom. Politics and political activity cost more to fund proportionally in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I should be the last person in the Committee to seek to curtail political donations.
I should like to address two very important questions: first, why should Northern Ireland be treated differently from any other part of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, what are the implications of such a course of action?
I am very concerned that the amendment appears to differentiate between one integral part of the United Kingdom and the remainder. It provides for one set of arrangements for England, Scotland and Wales and then treats Northern Ireland separately. That simply cannot be right.
The citizens of Northern Ireland elect Members to another place in exactly the same manner as their fellow citizens in England, Scotland and Wales. They are governed by the same Government as their fellow citizens in England, Scotland and Wales. Why,
1808
therefore, should political parties in Northern Ireland be treated any differently from their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales? I believe that we should treat the United Kingdom as a whole and not introduce some form of twin-track democracy whereby Northern Ireland is treated separately from Great Britain.
I know I am not alone in wondering why the effect of this amendment will be to permit political parties in Northern Ireland to do things which in England, Scotland and Wales would bring prosecution and retribution in the courts. The Government claim to be trying to get rid of even the faintest trace of fraud and corruption from the electoral process, an aim which I and my party wholeheartedly endorse. Yet proposals deemed good enough for political parties in England, Scotland and Wales are somehow unnecessary or unsuitable for political parties in another part of the Kingdom—in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to appear cynical—perish the thought—but a cynical observer might be moved to remark that the only reason for treating Northern Ireland differently from the remainder of the United Kingdom is to accommodate a certain political party operating in Northern Ireland; namely, Sinn Fein/IRA. If the Government are to permit foreign donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, they must be aware that such a measure will benefit Sinn Fein/IRA above all other parties, for it is Sinn Fein/IRA which raises a vast proportion of its funding abroad, most notably in the United States of America. The effect will therefore be that, courtesy of the British Government, Sinn Fein/IRA will have an unfair electoral advantage.
This particular measure will be of no help to the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Alliance Party or even the SDLP. It is scarcely credible that it is the Government's deliberate plan that Northern Ireland should be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom in order to accommodate Sinn Fein/IRA. But even if that is not the intention, it will certainly be the effect.
Another implication which follows from this is that once the principle of treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom in electoral terms has been established, there is a danger that a twin-track democracy could become a triple-track democracy, or even worse, if arguments were to be advanced for separate treatment for England, Scotland or Wales, thereby leading to further fragmentation of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, therefore, I must oppose this amendment on the grounds that it does not treat all parts of the United Kingdom equally and sets a dangerous precedent for the future well-being of democracy in a politically unified United Kingdom.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In putting forward these amendments—52 in all—the Minister referred to two major parts of what he is seeking to achieve. On the first, we have just heard an interesting and important speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I look

1809
forward to hearing what other Members of the Committee think on that point. The Minister will not, I think, have received it with great gratitude, whereas I am offering him great gratitude for the second part of what he was saying.
The concession which allows the Green Party and the Green Party of Scotland to be separate, and to work that way—which is clearly a matter of equity and not of particular concession—is an important one and we are very grateful for it. Later, we shall come to a question that has been touched on by the Minister; namely, the great strain that will be placed on small parties in terms of fulfilling the Bill's provisions on monetary returns and the work of treasurers. That difficulty will have to be faced up to, and I hope that we shall be able to put forward amendments to change the Bill as drafted. In the meantime, I thank the Government for this concession to the Green Party, the Scottish Green Party and any other party that finds itself in the same position.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: I hate to bring a serious note of dissent into the cosy atmosphere set up by my noble friend Lord Mackay and others, but this is a serious political amendment. First, I wonder why it comes at this stage of the Bill as a government amendment. Why was it not in the Bill as originally drafted? Why was it not given the openness of debate in the House of Commons and the press comment that would follow? That is typical of this Government.
Secondly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in his view that the provision sends the wrong messages. Is the Home Office really talking to the Northern Ireland Office? We do not have joined-up government; of course we do not. One bit does one thing, one bit continues to do another and each suits itself. I give those in the Northern Ireland Office some credit. Things are not going too well for them and they might feel some comfort at receiving a little credit from this side of the Committee. Anyone in the Northern Ireland Office who has any sense knows that it is nonsense to send this kind of message to the majority of people in Northern Ireland. They do not want to be seen as different from the inhabitants of England, Scotland and Wales.
I live in Northern Ireland. We are British people, we are part of the United Kingdom, with our representatives in Westminster. When it comes to elections and the treatment of political parties we do not want to be treated differently. I find it almost offensive that the Government should think of doing so. They are doing this for one reason only that I can think of; namely, to kowtow to another sovereign government; namely, the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
I shall not continue on this point. I think I have made the message clear. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, certainly has. I say to the Minister that he can be
1810
assured that we shall not leave this matter. Although I do not speak from the Front Bench, I have the backing of my party. We do not like this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: This group of amendments is very large and diverse. That has caused me a good deal of difficulty in speaking to it. I have two matters to deal with, one being the question of Northern Ireland. The other is entirely different: it is relatively minor and, I hope, totally unlike Northern Ireland, relatively uncontroversial.
Perhaps I may refer first to Northern Ireland. I speak as a member of the Neill committee. We took a great deal of evidence on this matter. We held hearings in Belfast at which we heard the views expressed of most of the major parties in Northern Ireland but not of Sinn Fein or the Democratic Unionists.
We were persuaded that Northern Ireland was in a different situation from that which prevailed in Great Britain. There are, and always have been, a number of differences. For example, if one looks back at the period 1921 to 1972, Northern Ireland then had a devolved government with very extensive powers which no other part of the United Kingdom enjoyed. Northern Ireland also has an entirely different party structure. In addition, a significant minority of the people of Northern Ireland, perhaps 40 per cent, regard themselves as primarily citizens of a different country and not the United Kingdom. That is different from the position in Scotland where everybody regards themselves as Scottish although there may be differences of opinion as to whether they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
It is not only a question of Northern Ireland being different from Great Britain. More importantly, the Republic of Ireland is different from other countries which we would regard as foreign. Undoubtedly, Ireland has special status. It is a country whose citizens are entitled to enter the United Kingdom without passports. More particularly, Section 2(1) of the Ireland Act 1949 provides:
"It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom".
We believed that that made it difficult for us to regard donations from the Republic of Ireland as foreign ones for the purposes of our report. We deal with these issues in paragraphs 5.32 to 5.41 on pages 75 to 77 of the report.
While I recognise the great strength of feeling expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Glendoran, the Neill committee came to a different conclusion which the Government adopted.

1811
Therefore, it is in a sense our responsibility. The Government acted on the basis of our report and not independently of what the committee said.
Lord Glentoran: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make one comment. We are concerned about the Republic being used as a conduit for American money.
Lord Goodhart: The committee was well aware of that obvious problem. However, if one looks at the matter pragmatically, it is virtually impossible to do anything about that matter.
I turn to an entirely different and, frankly, much less serious point. One of the matters with which this group of amendments is concerned—the Minister did not touch on it in his opening speech—is the registration of what are described as "minor parties". As the Bill is drafted, my understanding of the purpose of the amendments—I may be corrected—is that all local authority elections are to be regarded as relevant elections for the purposes of Clause 22. This means that anyone who wishes to stand in any local election under a party designation can do so only as the nominated representative of a registered political party. As the Bill stands, unamended, registration as a political party brings with it all the obligations of reporting on donations, and so on, which apply to large-scale parties.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 93 are part of this group; I am not sure why. I believe that they should not have been but there they are and it is impossible to ignore them because there will be consequences if we do so.
Presumably someone in the Home Office realised that it is inappropriate to require a group of people who wish to stand only in parish or community council elections to adopt all the burdens which attach to registered parties. Therefore the amendments create a new class of registered parties, described as minor parties. Those will be parties which intend only to stand in parish or community council elections in England or Wales.
The Government have introduced amendments—I assume that this is the reasoning behind them—which will reduce the burden on such groups by requiring them to register but relieving them from a number of burdens which go with registration. The real question is this. Why require registration of groups which contest only parish or community councils? Why should a group of people in Ambrige who want to run a slate for elections to the parish council, as the Ambridge ratepayers have to register as a political party? That seems seriously unnecessary and exceedingly bureaucratic.
I have attempted to deal with the problem by Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 which are not included in this group. Unfortunately, they have not been grouped with the relevant amendments. However, if the amendments are passed, Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 will be effectively pre-empted. Therefore I should like briefly to explain them.
1812
Amendment No. 61 deals with the problem simply by redefining relevant elections—that is, elections which can be fought only by registered parties—as excluding elections to local authorities which are not principal authorities. Parish and community councils are not principal authorities within the meaning of the Local Government Act.
Amendment No. 62 confers fall-back power on the Home Secretary to prevent candidates standing under confusing party names. I would not expect regulations to be needed for elections at parish council level but there is a possibility, so a power is, by my amendment, included.
I ask the Government to think again on the issue. Why on earth should rules about registration apply to parish council elections? Why not simply let the ratepayers of Ambridge put forward their slate without having to go through the rigmarole of registering as a political party and paying the fees which will no doubt go along with that registration? I ask the Minister, therefore, not to move today those amendments which relate only to minor parties but to use the gap between now and Report stage to reconsider whether it is necessary to make provision for minor parties, or whether it would not be infinitely simpler and easier, as I believe, to take parish council elections broadly out of the registration scheme.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suggested that this group of amendments was broken up. I tried to suggest ways of doing so but quickly ran into the sand because the minor parties issue and the Northern Ireland issue sometimes appeared in the same amendment. This is an appalling piece of drafting and forward planning and an appalling way to treat the Committee and the other place. It will receive a whole chunk of new material in Lords amendments.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who explained the minor parties issue in the amendments. The Minister did not mention minor parties; his speech did not contain a single word about them. I tried to work my way through the amendments, but I am not a lawyer. That is why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for doing so. However, when I read subsection (1A)(d) in Amendment No. 77,
"contests one or more parish or community elections".
I wondered why we were doing this. The Minister made no attempt to answer that.
I wondered whether there had been an attempt to block up what the government officials thought might be a loophole; that a major party might decide to allow the existence of a small unit which was a minor party, which would not need all the reporting restrictions and which could obtain cash from somewhere or another and pass it on. I am not sure whether that is possible under these arrangements, but perhaps the Government ought to examine that closely.

1813
However, the proposals are extraordinarily complex. The Government say that they are going to remove from the small parties standing in parish community elections most of their obligations, including having a treasurer, submitting a financial scheme and statement of account and the rules on donations. It certainly reduces the regulatory burden, but it still leaves the party with the problem of understanding this complex legislation and working out what does and does not apply to it so that it can register.
It was incumbent on the Minister to explain to the Committee why the amendment had been put forward, but he made no attempt to do so. He will have to make an attempt in summing up because we cannot even pick and choose what amendments we might decide to reject. I am not minded to try to reject anything I want to reject at this time of night, but the point has been well made.
When at the Report stage we see the Bill in a better form, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will deal with the minor parties issue in order to save me finding someone to help me through it.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am concerned about the procedural problem. If Amendment No. 93 is moved and agreed to today, we might not be able to come back to it and seek to delete it at a later stage.
Lord Bach: Perhaps I can assist the Committee because I am due to answer Amendments Nos. 61 and 62, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which deal only with minor parties. I am conscious that some of the amendments in this group deal with minor parties alongside the Northern Ireland issue. Perhaps it would be acceptable to Members of the Committee if the minor parties issue was left until we deal with those amendments, when I shall attempt to answer. I have examined the issue because those two amendments are the only ones in the group. If the government amendments presently before the Committee are passed, then on Report noble Lords can look at the Bill and return to the issues at that stage. I am trying to find a way through what is becoming a thicket and taking up a lot of time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for trying to help us. The problem remains that there is a kind of interweaving of the issues. I considered trying to amend his amendments, but I would have needed a cold towel and many hours to do that. It would have been extremely difficult. The real problem is that Amendment No. 93 concerns the registration of minor parties. There is nothing before Amendment No. 61 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about minor parties. I suspect that if we pass something before that amendment, as the Government invite us to do, it will
1814
knock out the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not believe there is a procedure for discussing such an amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I believe that the first government amendment which mentions minor parties is Amendment No. 63.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That being the case, I believe that we are all right. Therefore, we can leave the question of minor parties until we come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I believe that I have made most of the points, but they are worth underlining. It was not until the Minister spoke about the Green Party issue that I realised that these amendments had anything to do with that issue. As I have explained to noble Lords a number of times, I am not a lawyer and this is particularly difficult territory.
Lord Goodhart: I apologise to the Committee. In subsection (1B) of Amendment No. 58 there is a reference to minor parties. There is no explanation of that. Procedurally, I believe that there would be no great difficulty in ignoring that because it is only part of the amendment and can be struck out by an amendment at Report stage. The real difficulties arise when we reach Amendment No. 63 and subsequent amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that the noble Lord is right. We should proceed in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, suggested. I had not noticed where the Green Party came into it. I recall the issue because it was one that I raised during the Scottish and Welsh referendums. There was not only the Green Party, but also what we know in Scotland as Tommy Sheridan's party, but what is properly known as the Scottish Socialist Party.
The whole issue is that we only need this pile of legislation because of the change to the electoral system. It was simply so that registered parties could appear on the top-up list that we needed all this complexity. Even though the Conservative Party in Scotland has been the beneficiary of the complexity, I wonder whether it is worth it in the longer term. Perhaps, after the London elections last week, the Government may also be wondering whether it is worth it.
I did not appreciate that the Scottish Green Party issue was going to be resolved in this manner. To be honest, although the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, spoke about it, I did not manage to work my way through the amendments to see exactly how they do what is necessary for the Scottish Green Party. I am pleased to hear that they do. I presume that they also do it for the Scottish Socialist Party, which is right. As I say, it was a major issue when we addressed the Scottish referendum Bill because it would have stopped both the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish

1815
Socialist Party. Those parties achieved one seat each. I am not sure that it would have stopped Mr Dennis Canavan who also gained a seat.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may ask him whether he shares my anxiety that, even if we had, at a different time of day or at a different sitting, the time to go through thoroughly all the various—to my mind, conflicting—amendments, whether we would still find a great deal of overlap and contradiction, and whether we would find that a slab of the Committee stage of the Bill had been inadequately covered.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that it will be inadequately covered—certainly so by the other place. We are experiencing difficulties with the way in which the Bill has been drafted and with the way in which these two quite separate issues have been woven together in a complex manner. That is not the best way in which to deal with these issues. I must say to the Government that I do not believe that they have served the House or the cause of clear legislation at all well. However, we shall be returning to the subject of the minor parties.
Therefore, I leave that matter and turn to the part of the Bill which refers to Northern Ireland, which the Minister did explain. I wish to make an interesting point which is probably out of order, or at least it is out of the order of the Bill, but which is totally relevant. If I heard the Minister rightly, the whole justification has regard to funding. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, did not raise the question of whether that represents another little separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of Great Britain. There are two registers and, therefore, the idea somehow arises of two separate countries.
Of course, one could logically have solved the Scottish Green Party problem by having another register for Scotland, where there is a Scottish National Party and two or three other Scottish variations in the titles that parties take. Therefore, one could have a separate register for Scotland. However, a separate register is being chosen only for Northern Ireland. Like my noble friend, I have my suspicions that the issue goes a little further than the question of funding. However, the question of funding is complex.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did the House a service by explaining clearly the problem experienced by the Neill committee. That was that one or perhaps two parties which operate in the North of Ireland operate also in the Republic. That is a difficulty from which one cannot escape. How does one resolve it? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed us in the direction of the 1949 Act which states that the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country. Therefore, I wonder idly, if it is not a foreign country, why cannot its electors or nationals give donations to any British political party? That would be one way, at least, to make it all square so that it would not look odd. One would not then need two registers. After all, if citizens of the Republic can come to this country on
1816
Monday and register to vote on Tuesday, and if the Act is as clear as it was in 1949, that would seem to be a solution to the problem.
However, no one raised—and the Minister entirely ducked—the fact that the Neill committee said that the definition of permissible sources should include citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic and subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997. That is perfectly clear. I understand the argument for doing that. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and my noble friend Lord Glentoran also understand it. That is why I say that, although I would not necessarily approve of it, at least I understand the argument for saying, "Let us go back to the 1949 Act and allow a citizen of the Republic to donate to any British party". Then we do not need to make Northern Ireland look almost like a separate country.
However, the Government have gone further than that because Northern Ireland parties can take money from a donor anywhere in the world. One does not have to get up early in the morning—one does not even have to bother to get up in the morning!— to know exactly what is behind that. It is not for the benefit of the Ulster Unionist Party or any of the Unionist parties, and it is probably not for the benefit of the SDLP; it is intended entirely and completely to allow Sinn Fein/IRA to continue to source the very money that has created the mayhem in Northern Ireland. I think it is appeasement. I do not like it one little bit.
I am prepared to listen to the argument about the Republic because I understand that. I do not necessarily agree with it. I think there may be a more elegant solution if the Government chose to take it. But to say that Northern Ireland is different and that parties in Northern Ireland—and that really just means one party—can have donations from anywhere in the world they like is, frankly, appeasement, as my noble friend said.
But it is worse than that and the Neill committee had evidence about that too. I do not carry any brief for them, but in Scotland and Wales there are two nationalist parties which want to divide the United Kingdom. They do not want to belong to a different country; they want to create their own countries of Scotland and Wales.
I can do little better than quote Mr Magnus Linklater at paragraph 5.8 of the Neill committee report. Magnus Linklater is the husband of one of our colleagues in your Lordships' House. He is a journalist of considerable standing in Scotland. He is even allowed to write for The Times in London, which just shows his standing. In his evidence he said:
"The government has announced it intends to ban foreign donations and there may be an argument for barring companies based abroad from donating to Scottish party funds, since their motives in doing so would certainly be open to question".
I presume that he was thinking that they were donating to one of the Unionist parties in order to keep the Union together. He went on to say:
"But what about individuals? It is said that Scotland's greatest export is its people and many of them have achieved great success abroad. Even second or third generation Scots retain a passionate

1817
interest in their native country. Provided donations over £5,000 were declared, why should they not help the party they believe best represents the interests of Scotland?".
If you replace Scotland with Ireland, you get exactly the argument to which the Government have signed up. My question is obvious.
To be fair, Mr Dafydd Wigley, on the same page, talking about Plaid Cymru, said:
"If it is decided that sums of more than £5,000 are an appropriate threshold for transparency, clearly that transparency should be equally effective for citizens living abroad. I would not like to deny the good people of Patagonia the right to contribute to Plaid Cymru if they so wish. Unfortunately, I do not imagine that many of them are rich enough to make a large contribution. Equally, there are people who will as individuals identify with the UK without necessarily being UK citizens".
I could go on. Mr George Reid, the Vice-Convenor of the Scottish National Party—although I do not think he is that now because is the Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament—in his evidence reminded the committee that in North America the Scottish National Party has about 1,000 registered supporters. It is a valid question. Why should the Scottish and Welsh diaspora not be allowed to contribute to the political parties which they think best represent the interests of their native country—perhaps we can call it the old country? Why can they not do it if the IRA and Sinn Fein can do it?
Is it not just a little nauseating for a democracy to accept that distinction when SNP and Plaid Cymru have never, ever suggested that they might use any kind of violent means to achieve their ends. So it would appear that if you are a nationalist party which is quite happy with a bit of violence you can have special circumstances made for you, but if you are a nationalist party which pursues fully democratic, peaceful methods you have had it. I do not think that that is a good signal to send out. It may be convenient for the Government to send out that signal and it may make life easier for them, but I do not believe that it is honest. Therefore, I am profoundly unhappy.
I was profoundly unhappy about Clause 65 before I came to the Committee today. That is obvious because I have tabled a Motion that that clause should not stand part of the Bill. When we reach that point, it will not stand part of the Bill if I can persuade enough noble Lords to agree with me that it is illogical. But when I see a separate register being created, I become even more concerned.
This has not been a happy little debate. That is partly because of the way that two issues of some importance have been wrapped together but it is mostly because one of those issues seems to me to strike at the very heart of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know which side I am on when it comes to that particular debate.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a wide-ranging discussion that has touched on three separate sets of issues. I shall start with the kind comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley,
1818
about our attempts to ensure that we enable the Scottish Green Party to operate effectively. We are delighted that we have managed to solve that problem.
I am grateful to your Lordships for having agreed that we should deal with the issue of minor parties at a later stage. I believe that they pose separate sets of issues, although I understand why the confusion crept in with regard to the grouping. I take on board the admonishments made in relation to that.
Turning to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Glentoran and Lord Mackay, I accept the sincerity and the integrity with which many of the observations were made. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, called for equal treatment. He asked why Northern Ireland should be treated differently. That is a proper question to pose in the context of the debate, although I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is unduly suspicious in his assumption of what lies behind the amendments. In this legislation it is certainly not our intention to suggest in any shape or form that we see Northern Ireland as somewhat separate, as being floated off, or independent. I cannot sign up to the notion that in some way we are setting up a register to advance that position. That is not the intention of the Government at all.
In effect, in these amendments we give life to two of the recommendations that were carefully detailed by the Neill committee. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, clearly and helpfully explained why those recommendations had been made. Recommendation 20 of the Neill committee report says:
"The Government should consider in the context of the development of the peace process whether it would be expedient to introduce a short term and reviewable exemption from the reporting requirements in respect of donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland".
That goes to the heart of this issue. That is how we see it. We do not see this as a "for ever" set of amendments. It will have to be kept under review because we believe that Northern Ireland should be treated like everywhere else, but we are mindful of the practicalities of the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, honestly accepted that a different situation persists in Northern Ireland because of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord cannot have read his own Bill. It goes much further than the Neill committee report that he has just read out. It is not a case of electors in the Republic of Ireland being allowed to donate to Northern Irish parties, but of foreign donors being allowed to donate. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out under the 1949 Act, "foreign donors" does not mean the Republic of Ireland, but, quite bluntly, it means America. The noble Lord will have to address that matter if he wishes to convince us of the merits of his argument.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I return to the point that, in moving the amendment, it is not our intention to

1819
facilitate the movement of funds in that way. Our challenge is to deal with the particular and peculiar circumstances that persist in Ireland. We have to work on that basis.
This has been a long debate. That is the Government's position. We accept that there are special circumstances in Ireland. The legislation attempts to reflect that. While I understand the questions and some of the difficulties posed in the debate, I invite noble Lords to accept that point at least. Having made those comments, I commend the amendments, in general, to the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, I do not think that we can leave it like that. I ask the Minister for the third time: will he justify the departure from the suggestion of the Neill committee that special circumstances in Ireland meant that donations could be received by parties in Northern Ireland from citizens of the Republic of Ireland? That is what it states in Recommendation 29.
Am I wrong about the Bill? Does it not go as far as I have said? Or am I right to assert that in fact the Bill states that foreign donations—donations that do not come from the Republic of Ireland—can be made to a Northern Ireland party? Frankly, if I am wrong and that is not what it states in the Bill, then let us hear the correction from the Minister now. We would all be very relieved.
However, I do not think that I am wrong. The exemption is for Northern Ireland parties; namely, for Sinn Fein/IRA, although the Minister has not addressed or confirmed that. However, I do not believe that he can give even one other example of another Irish political party that receives donations from outside the island of Ireland. Let us put the matter in those terms. It comes down to this: can he at least justify the exception to be made for one Northern Ireland party from the rule that exempts all the legitimate, democratic, non-violent political parties in the United Kingdom from foreign donations? Will he address the point that I made about Scotland? No, he absolutely ignored it. If he does not have an answer, then he simply ignores the question.
This is not good enough and it is not going to get the Minister through this debate. All I can say is that it is a jolly good job that it is 10.30 at night rather than 3.30 in the afternoon.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Perhaps I may confirm that my noble friend Lord Rogan and I are not in any way opposed to contributions made by citizens of the Irish Republic to parties either here in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. What concerns us—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has made this point clearly over and over again—is not a question of only £100,000 here or there. We are discussing the millions of pounds that come from sympathisers of the IRA in America.
If anyone doubts the willingness of Irish-American citizens to donate, look at the reports coming today from Washington. A trial has begun concerning 100 new weapons that had been purchased for the IRA
1820
with Irish-American money. They had largely been dispatched and were on their way to the United Kingdom for use against United Kingdom citizens.
We are not in any way unwilling to help to facilitate citizens of the Irish Republic either as regards their voting rights here in the United Kingdom or as regards financial contributions either from them or to them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again I shall return to the point I made that we are giving effect to the report of the Neill committee. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to refer to Recommendation 29. When he spoke earlier in this debate, he appeared to accept that. Even if he did not like what it might then necessarily facilitate, he accepted that that was the case.
The issue is simply this: we accept that we are giving rise to a situation in Northern Ireland which is less than we would like to see. It must be acknowledged that it is not perfect. Nevertheless, it is the case that Northern Ireland parties will undoubtedly benefit from donations made by citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Having accepted that, clearly there are some difficulties, but that is the basis on which these amendments have been tabled. They are not designed peculiarly to benefit one party. Indeed, there is a strong argument to be made that they will benefit more than one party. The noble Lord himself referred to the SDLP and he should expect that to be the case.
This is a difficult situation, but I believe that we must deal with it practically and pragmatically. That is what we are trying to do at this point in this legislation. I understand completely the fervour and determination of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord and others, but we have got to deal with real politics, not politics as perhaps we would like them to be.
We see this as part of a process. At the end of that process and over time we can expect to see the situation change in Northern Ireland. At that point we shall review this exemption. That is what we must look to in the longer term.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify the effect of the amendments on the Bill? As I understand it, under Clause 65 there is an unrestricted power for the Secretary of State to enlarge the category of permissible donors, which could therefore go beyond those who are resident citizens of the Irish Republic. Is there anything in the amendments which enlarges that further, or is the issue really about Clause 65?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is as the noble Lord explains it. I shall go away and look again at the effect of the clause and the amendments together and advise the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee accordingly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is still not good enough. My attention has now been drawn to Clause 65 which says:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for extending in relation to each Northern Ireland party".
That was changed by the Government in the other place from "a" in the original Bill to "each" and they are now changing it back to "a". Do not ask me why. Ask the Government, and do not rely on getting an answer.
"The clause continues: and for such period as is specified, the categories of permissible donors specified in section 49(2)".
In Clause 49(2) we know that a "permissible donor" is an individual registered on an electoral register.
The Minister must not just pray me in aid. I said that I could understand the argument in relation to the Republic of Ireland, although I felt a more elegant solution would be to allow all British parties to accept donations from electors in the Republic of Ireland. That at least would not be building this Chinese wall, if I may call it that, down the Irish Sea.
But we come back to the point the Minister has not answered. Is that what the Government are going to do? Are they going to say that any foreigner—that means a citizen of the United States, let me be exact about to whom we are referring—will not be able to donate to an organised party? If the Minister can say that a citizen of the United States will not be able to give a donation to an organised party, we will all go home at least a little happier.
But I do not believe the Government can say that. Unless it has changed, government policy was that Sinn Fein needed the money it received from America. That is what this is all about. If it is not, I am sure we shall all be pleased to be told. If, in fact, as a result of this debate, people in North America are unable to give money to political parties in Northern Ireland, we shall have made more progress today than I would ever have thought possible at three o'clock this afternoon.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is pushing me further and further on this point. I fully understand that. I should love to be able to give the cast-iron assurance he seeks. But there is no practical way I can do that.
Of course it would be preferable if we could stop donations from the United States flowing into Northern Ireland via the Republic. Of course we all want and seek to see that. But no one can make that promise absolutely from the Dispatch Box; it is not possible to do so.
I fully understand the strength of the point being made. But the intention is to exempt Northern Ireland parties from the provisions of Part IV as a whole, and they may not be subject to the ban on foreign donations. The order will apply for four years, certainly in the first instance. I hope that that explanation takes us somewhat further. It is something to which we can return on Clause 65.
Lord Goodhart: I am sorry to intervene again at this stage, but the situation now seems to me to be
1822
extremely unsatisfactory. These are absolutely central issues that we are now being asked to decide after 10.30 in the evening. If these amendments are agreed, we shall not be able effectively to return to them. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are purely drafting amendments and there is no objection to them. But the later amendments give rise to very important issues. Would it not be possible—and, indeed, appropriate—for the Government not to ask the Committee to agree those amendments tonight but to withdraw them and bring them back for debate on Report when the whole situation will be a great deal clearer than it is now?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is a very helpful suggestion. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I believe we will be able to amend these amendments after they are incorporated in the Bill when we consider the legislation on Report, but, frankly, that is still very unsatisfactory. We shall be asked to pass a series of amendments when we have exposed the fact that the Government have no particular policy in this respect. I should have thought that a "yes" or "no" answer would be terribly simple. I would not have continued with the argument because frustration had eventually forced me to remain in my seat, but the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has— the Minister will be sorry to hear—given me a new lease of life.
It is a simple question: can a person in the United States give money to a British political party? As I understand it, the answer is, "No, they cannot". Can a Scotsman who lives in the US give money to the Scottish National Party to help the old country? No, he cannot. Can an American give money to an Irish political party for the old country? Either he can or he cannot. Either the Government intend that he can, or they intend that he cannot. It is terribly simple. Indeed, I believe that we deserve an answer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand some of the confusion that has arisen as a by-product of this debate. However, I return to the argument clearly laid out in the Neill report. We are trying, by way of these amendments, to ensure that we put that properly in place. I believe that the real issue is contained in Clause 65—
Lord Glentoran: I appreciate what the Minister has said, but he is just coming to the point that I had intended to make. The Neill report had been produced well before this Bill was drafted. I still fail to understand why, if it was thought necessary, these amendments had not been incorporated in the Bill before it ever entered the other place. Equally, I am very suspicious—and this is the key to the point that I wish to make—because it seems to me that Clause 65 gives the Government and Secretary of State powers to make special provision if and when it seems to be necessary by an order that will be justified in both Houses in the proper way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I return to the point. Clause 65 will provide the opportunity for us to debate

1823
these matters fully. The question that has been asked is whether a person in the USA can give money to a Northern Ireland party. Fairly and honestly, I believe that, yes, he probably can. But that is not—
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again, but he made the point a few minutes ago that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to stop Irish American citizens sending money into Northern Ireland. By the same token, is it impossible for any nation in the Commonwealth to send money through the post to England for the Conservative Party? What is the difference?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The important thing about the Bill—this goes to the heart of the debate—is that we are trying to regulate and legislate to control the process of donations so that we have an entirely understandable and transparent situation. That has been part of the debate that we have had this evening. I can understand where some of the confusion has crept in.
I have tried to clarify matters as best I can. I have been pushed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to suggest that these amendments take us further than was intended in the Neill committee report. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that we can return to these matters on later clauses and obviously we can consider them further at Report stage. On that basis it is entirely possible for us to endorse the amendments this evening. I accept that the debate has been less than clear but I believe that we have now achieved greater clarity. I hope that the Committee will therefore accept the amendments.
Lord Monson: Would not the Committee be perfectly in order to accept Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 tonight while reserving the right to return to the other amendments in the group on the next day of the Committee stage?
Lord Carter: I hope that I can help on a matter of procedure. I am not familiar with the argument that is being proposed here and therefore I shall not address that. It is important to realise that, provided amendments are not agreed to in Committee on a Division, they can be returned to on Report. I suggest that the easiest thing to do is for the Committee to accept the amendments tonight, although not as the result of a Division. That will then give time to reflect between now and Report on the best way to deal with the problem we are discussing, if it can be dealt with. As I say, provided the amendments are not accepted as the result of a Division—that cannot be reversed at Report—they can be amended on Report.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Government Chief Whip's comments. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, surely we can accept Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 this evening. The other amendments
1824
in the group could he debated on the next day of the Committee stage as we are unlikely to reach them this evening.
Lord Carter: I had hoped that we might have progressed beyond Amendment No. 56 this evening, but, the way things are going, that is probably unlikely. I am now being pushed to end the day's proceedings at Amendment No. 55. However, as has been said, probably the right way to proceed is to accept Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 this evening and then take the matter on from there.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 7, line 35, leave out ("political").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 40, at end insert—
("(c) a registered political party is "represented" if there are at least two Members of the European Parliament belonging to the party who—

(i) are Members for a United Kingdom electoral region, and

(ii) are not disqualified from sitting or voting in that Parliament;

(d) a registered political party is "represented" if there are at least two Members of the Scottish Parliament belonging to the party who are not disqualified from sitting or voting in that Parliament and that party also stands candidates in elections to the House of Commons:
(e) a registered political party is "represented" if there are at least two Members of the Welsh Assembly belonging to the party who are not disqualified from sitting or voting in that Assembly and that party also stands candidates in elections to the House of Commons; and
(f) a registered political party is "represented" if there are at least two Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly belonging to the party who are not disqualified from sitting or voting in that Assembly and that party also stands candidates in elections to the House of Commons").
The noble Lord said: Having reached the end of that marathon, I now turn to policy development grants. Policy development grants for political parties are good provisions which I certainly welcome. I welcome them in particular on behalf of my party. My amendment seeks to give my party—and other parties which find themselves in the same position—the status which is needed to access policy development grants. Clause 11(1)(b), as at present drafted, states,
"a registered political party is 'represented' if there are at least two members of the House of Commons belonging to the party",
etc.
I belong to a party which, although it has no Members in the House of Commons and only one Member in the House of Lords who has got there by, shall we say, sideways movement, nevertheless achieves under fair, or reasonably fair, electoral systems, 11 or 12 per cent of the poll where we stand for election. That has been the case when we have gained

1825
representatives in the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament and in the London Assembly. We therefore comprise a significant political party in this country.
We believe that the definition of "political party" should depend not only on having two Members of the House of Commons but also on the kind of representation set out in my amendment, which is the kind of representation that my party has at the moment.
I hope that the Government will be friendly towards this suggestion. I have no doubt that my ex-colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party will be fairly supportive of my amendment. I remember the time when it, too, would not have qualified as a political party under this kind of set up. They had only five Members of the House of Commons, three of them by agreement with other parties. It could just have qualified—but only just—and only then by pushing it. The party at that time certainly was not polling 11 per cent all over the country, as we are.
I hope that Members of the Committee, of all parties, will have some sympathy with the point I am making. I hope that the Government will feel able to meet us on this issue. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Beaumont of Whitley, will be glad to hear that we have great sympathy with his amendment. We think that it raises an important issue. I am surprised that his former colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have not yet spoken, but no doubt they will wish to intervene and tell the Committee what they think. It is obviously an issue that affected them in the past and no doubt they will feel able to support their former noble friend.
It is an interesting issue which the Minister should consider very carefully. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, policy development grants are important. We should not exclude from development grants a recognisable political party which gains a substantial share of a vote. We look forward to the Minister's reply and to hearing what the Liberal Democrats have to say on the subject.
Lord Rennard: I am not used to the Conservative Party being so keen and enthusiastic to hear from the Liberal Democrats. It is most welcome, even at this late stage of the evening.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that we on these Benches are very happy to support the amendment. In the interests of fair-mindedness, it is right and appropriate to support the Green Party's claim to an entitlement to a grant for its policy development work. We on these Benches believe that all parties are entitled to some support from the state towards what they do, not only in issues of policy development.
1826
Having looked at the Green Party's policies, it would seem that putting public money into developing them further would probably be in everyone's interest. Therefore we support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hate to spoil a party when it is getting into full flow. I fully understand the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment, which is to widen eligibility for policy development grants. On the face of it, that seems a perfectly reasonable and fair objective. The noble Lord is right to pose the question: "Why should the big parties share out this public funding between them while smaller parties are left to struggle on with their meagre resources?"
But, as with so many of the questions raised on the Bill, the answer is in the Neill committee report. The Neill committee envisaged that policy development grants would be available only to parties represented in the House of Commons. Given the rationale for such grants, it is clear why this is the case.
The committee saw the development of ideas and long-term policy as one of the key functions of political parties. However, the committee was concerned that political parties were increasingly hard-pressed to keep up with the cost of campaigns and were, as a consequence, increasingly less able to devote resources to the development of long-term policy. This left them less prepared for the possibility of office.
Clearly this is only a real problem where there is a realistic chance of a party achieving office. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I think that even he would accept that the chances of the Green Party getting close to achieving political office are some way off in the future.
The purpose of the policy development fund envisaged by the Neill committee is not to provide financial support and assistance to a myriad of smaller parties. It is primarily to help those parties that enjoy what I think we can best describe as "significant electoral support" in the fulfilment of one of their functions.
Any widening of the eligibility would serve only to reduce the amount of money available to those parties which it was intended should benefit from the fund and thus reduce the effectiveness of the scheme. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will be convinced by that argument to withdraw his amendment in those terms, but that is what was envisaged. That is how the noble Lord, Lord Neill, saw it. For those reasons we believe that the amendment should be rejected.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. The argument about funding is straight copy from a Treasury brief. I do not think that the Minster can get away with the argument that if small parties were included there would be less money for big parties. If more parties are included it takes a very small top-up to make sure that the big parties get what they originally thought they should. It would not be a substantial amount of money. Therefore, I have

1827
to say to the Minister that it is a fairly disingenuous argument. We are talking about a matter of principle here, not a matter of squeezing money out of the Treasury.
The important point is that we have a situation here where the Government have brought in devolution. There is now a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of the noble Lord's amendment specifically mention "Scottish Parliament" and "Welsh Assembly" as a form of qualification. Surely, if the Government really believe in devolution and supporting the principle of devolution, they must recognise that the House of Commons and your Lordships' Houses should not be the only criteria for policy development grants. We have devolution. Perhaps there is an answer here. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly could decide on their own to give policy development grants, or perhaps we should put a clause in the Bill giving them power to do that. Perhaps the Minister would care to answer that question?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Viscount develops an interesting argument but I suspect that it is something which is a devolved matter: it will be for them. We can have further argument and debate about that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, was clear that these policy development grants should apply only to those parties that were represented in the House of Commons. That was the basis on which he reported. There has been criticism that we have tried to cherry-pick and depart substantially from the Neill report recommendations. We are trying not to do that. That is precisely the case in this particular instance. I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would like to seduce us into helping and assisting the Green Party and other minor parties further in this way. But we are not minded to do that.
We return to the principles set out in the Neill report. That is the basis on which this piece of legislation has been drafted, based and developed. No doubt if the devolved assemblies wish to give support to parties within those assemblies, certainly in terms of providing them with policy support, they will do so. I understand that that is part of the intention of the new administration that has been formed for London. I understand that the mayor is keen to see all parties assisted and supported within the assembly. Perhaps that is the way forward. We do not believe that we should make available state funding to minor and
1828
small parties that are not properly represented in the House of Commons. For that reason we resist the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on this subject. I referred particularly to the London elections but introduced a reference to this point as well. I received a very sympathetic letter. It is clear that this is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his commit tee were making a judgment on a situation as they found it. They found representation in the House of Commons the right one to choose.
I object to the idea of making a judgment that my party is one which would never have power. I remember the days when the Liberal Democrat Party—the Liberal Party as it was then—was very much at this kind of level. One sees how it has grown since. Indeed, the great Labour Party is not unashamed to have it as some kind of partner. What kind of partner, we are never quite sure, but nevertheless as some kind of partner. All over Europe, the Green parties, with fairer methods of election than on the whole we have to our House of Commons, are being represented and are partners in government.
I do not think that you can make a judgment that the party to which I belong will not be a party of government. You can say that it will not be a party of government in my lifetime. But there was a time when my nearest and dearest used to say to me that the Liberal Party would never be a party of government in my lifetime. They have been proved wrong.
There is a serious point of principle here. I am delighted with the support I have received from both the Front Benches on this side of the Committee. I certainly intend to return to this matter at a later stage. It is only fair that we should give the Government, who in some ways are showing themselves as prepared to think again and in others are being forced to think again, the chance to look at this matter once more Equity demands that the amendment should be passed. I shall certainly bring it back at Report stage in the hope that the Government will think again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Court Service: Performance Targets
  Court Service: Performance Targets
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Sanctions
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Sanctions
  FCO Communications System
  FCO Communications System
  NATO Parliamentary Assembly
  NATO Parliamentary Assembly
  E-envoy Website
  E-envoy Website
  Trident Programme: Cost
  Trident Programme: Cost
  Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines
  Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines
  Antibiotic Resistance and Communicable Disease Surveillance: PHLS Grant
  Antibiotic Resistance and Communicable Disease Surveillance: PHLS Grant
  Child Abuse: Appointments to Departmental Advisory Groups
  Child Abuse: Appointments to Departmental Advisory Groups
  Modernising Agenda for the Economy
  Modernising Agenda for the Economy
  Act of Union Bicentenary: Post Office Decision on Stamp Issue
  Act of Union Bicentenary: Post Office Decision on Stamp Issue
  Trade Balance: Import and Export of Defence Equipment
  Trade Balance: Import and Export of Defence Equipment
  Comprehensive and Secondary Modern Schools: GCSE/GNVQ Percentages
  Comprehensive and Secondary Modern Schools: GCSE/GNVQ Percentages
  House of Lords: Right to Regulate its own Affairs
  House of Lords: Right to Regulate its own Affairs
  House of Lords' Register of Interests
  House of Lords' Register of Interests
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order
  Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order