Sitting of 24 November 2000

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

  Sovereignty
  9.34 am
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 56,286 people from across the west midlands and beyond. The petitioners wish the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom remains an independent sovereign state, with the economy run for the benefit of our own citizens, and the pound retained.
  The petition has been gathered and signed by people supporting all the political parties and by those supporting none. It is a genuine expression from across the west midlands of deep concern for democracy, and for our control over the economy. It expresses a sense of country.
  Among the hundreds who helped, I pay tribute to Mr. Antony Lenton, of Aldridge, and Mr. D. Bennett, of Walsall. The petition is addressed:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
  and states:
  The Humble Petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom
  Sheweth
  That we the people are being led into a Federal State which we do not wish to be part of. We wish to remain an independent Sovereign State with the economy run for the benefit of our own citizens. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house urge the Government to listen to public opinion and retain Britain's currency (The Pound).
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Environment Agency
  [Relevant documents: The Environment Agency's response, HC 870, and the Government's response, Cm. 4832, to the Sixth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 34.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  9.35 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am very grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the Select Committee report on the work of the Environment Agency. It is almost six months since we published the report, but the events of the past six or so weeks have emphasised not only the Environment Agency's general importance, but the specific issue of flooding. It is therefore apposite that we are debating the report today.
  I should like, first, to thank the specialist advisers who helped us with our report, David Slater and Stephen Tromans, and to express my appreciation to the Clerks and staff of the Committee Office, without whose help it would be very difficult for Select Committees to do their work. I also thank everyone who submitted evidence and all those who came and subjected themselves to questioning by the Committee. One of the strengths of the Committee's report is that it is based on the evidence that we received. It is also extremely important to bear in mind that the report is based not simply on the views of Committee members, but on their views taking into account the evidence that we received.
  Today, we are able to debate the Select Committee report, the Government's response, and—equally importantly, although it is not mentioned on today's Order Paper—the Environment Agency's response. In some ways, the agency's response was as useful as the Government's response.
  The parentage of the idea of an environment agency goes back to a Select Committee report published in 1989, when the then Environment Select Committee strongly recommended that an environment agency be established. The then Government rejected the recommendation, and did not concede until 1995 that an environment agency would be a good thing. The record of Select Committees has often been that ideas expressed to them take some time to find their way into Government policy. I should add that in 1989, I was not a member of the Select Committee.
  The Environment Agency was established in April 1996. I think that the hope was that it would bring a dynamic vision to environmental issues.
  At the end of our inquiry, we were more than a little disappointed. When we published our report, I said:
  "Our quality of life can no longer be measured solely in crude economic terms. It depends crucially on the protection and enhancement of the environment. The Environment Agency has a crucial role to play in delivering a better quality of life for the people of England and Wales.
  When the Agency was formed in 1996, the hope was that this single new body would bring additional benefits to the environment, industry and society as a whole. However, the conclusion of our inquiry is that progress in creating an effective, coherent and confident new body has not been as rapid in the 3;½ years since the Agency was formed as it ought to have been.

  551
  I am almost tempted to say that since the report was published and I made those comments, a lot of water has passed under the bridge—but sadly, the water has gone over the bridge. Since the report came out we have also had a little more opportunity to see how well the Environment Agency is working.
  It is very important that the position at the top of the agency be strengthened. We were told by Sir John Harman, the newly appointed chairman, that he wanted to give the organisation more direction and make more impact. We hoped that he would be perceived as Mr. Environment, but during the recent difficulties with the floods I was not absolutely convinced that he came across as giving that strong leadership, nor that the agency got its message across. Although I welcome the appointment of Baroness Young of Old Scone as the new chief executive, I feel that the agency should look very carefully at the roles of the chairman and the chief executive to make sure that they each have a clear idea of their responsibilities. It is important that over the next few years, the Environment Agency strengthens its administration and its public profile.
  I now turn to some of the more detailed points in our report. We were concerned that the agency was not doing as well as it could in respect of managing and supervising landfill. The Select Committee is conducting another inquiry into waste, and again the evidence suggests that the agency is not totally on top of the problems. I understand the difficulties. Really big landfill sites run by the best operators tend to have good facilities for people to get washed and changed and to get cups of tea. It is tempting for Environment Agency staff to spend rather more time supervising those sites than small landfill sites that are not necessarily open for tipping most of the time, may have a couple of guard dogs, and generally operate in more difficult circumstances. It is important, however, that Environment Agency staff spend as much time, if not longer, supervising sites which are likely to be irregularly used, as on supervising the really good sites.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is a proposal to create a land-raising site in my constituency. The inquiry was held months and months ago and the case has been with the Government for ages—one hopes that that is because they are going to refuse it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Environment Agency should also take a close look at proposals to use this out-of-date technology?
  Mr. Bennett: Yes. I hope that we can substantially reduce the need for landfill sites. We have a firm duty under EU directives to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. I shall not go into much detail this morning, but it is a crucial issue for society that we should reduce the amount of rubbish that we throw away, re-use as much material as possible, and minimise the amount of material that we use. It is almost obscene that the rich part of the world uses 80 per cent. of its resources, whereas the less developed countries use just a fraction of those resources. The developed world also produces most of the pollution.
  552
  If we are to have a more equitable world, it is essential that we try to maintain our standard of living by using far fewer resources and creating far less waste and pollution.
  Mr. John Gummer: While the hon. Gentleman is on that point, can he tell me whether the Select Committee has found any evidence that the Environment Agency has done any work to prepare for 2002-03, when tyres will no longer be able to be put into landfill sites whole, but will have to be chopped up? I hear that no work is being done on that.
  Mr. Bennett: That is one issue on which we would like the Environment Agency to do rather more. An awful lot of people are looking at uses for tyres, and during the Select Committee's current inquiry at least one person has told me that in future there might be competition for old tyres to be put to various uses. The sooner that happens, the better. Recently, a lorry-load of tyres turned up overnight on a piece of wasteland in my constituency. Someone had just dumped them there. I shall say something about fly tipping later, but the sooner we can get a market price for old tyres, the better. I am told that they can now be used for making road surfaces and for all sorts of other purposes. It is also possible to burn them, although I do not think that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for them to be burnt in cement kilns—certainly not among the people living nearby.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I can advise hon. Members that a company in the north-east will collect tyres and recycle them free of charge. Obviously, this information is not widespread. We should make more use of the company that collects tyres and recycles them.
  Mr. Bennett: That was a nice commercial from my hon. Friend. It might do us all some good if he put the name of the company into the record during his speech so that we can all send our tyres there.
  There are two sides to the agency's supervision of waste management. First, it has to put more effort into regulating landfill sites and making sure that they are properly supervised, that they are genuine and that there are no attempts to distribute the stuff that ought to go to landfill sites onto agricultural land, as is happening in some places. Secondly, the agency needs to do much more research into finding alternative uses for some of the more bulky waste. It also ought to have much better information about what is in people's dustbins, so that it can persuade us to be more sensible in our purchasing and buy fewer goods that are wrapped, for example.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as landfill becomes the preferred solution for less of our waste in future, it is important that we adopt a strategy based on waste minimisation, re-use and recycling, rather than filling the gap with incineration, which has its own problems?
  Mr. Bennett: I certainly accept that. We must not waste resources through incineration or landfill.
  I am concerned about the fact that the Environment Agency decided on the complicated idea of matrix management. The Select Committee found it difficult to understand—and so, I fear, did rather a lot of people in the agency. The agency needs to look carefully at some

  553
  of its management methods and consider who it recruits. We were told that it was recruiting a lot of young graduates. I am sure that some of them will do an extremely good job, but particularly when it comes to talking to industry about fairly complicated industrial processes, there is an advantage if the person who is doing the regulating has been involved in those processes at some time and can talk on equal terms with the representatives of a company, particularly if the agency is trying to persuade that company to develop a new best way of doing something, which the management is not that keen on.
  The agency should also promote openness. Members of the Select Committee were most impressed when we visited the agency's headquarters when it was developing its web pages. I think that staff understand that the new technology available through the internet can have tremendous advantages in getting their message across. However, they must remember that a large number of people do not have access to the web.
  The Committee received evidence that in pulling the new organisation together there was not evenness across all the regions. That issue needs to be considered carefully, particularly when the agency is controlling industrial processes. In the context of competition between different industrial producers, it is important to ensure that there is evenness between regions, and that the agency does not take a slightly more relaxed view in one region than in another.
  There was a complaint, which I think was fully justified, that on occasions the Environment Agency was slow to respond to requests for information to get on with the process. For industry in particular, it is important that decisions are made quickly, as time costs money. It is also important that individuals who make requests for information receive timely and quick responses.
  We had some reservations about the agency's attempts to name and shame. It is important to exert as much pressure as possible to achieve compliance with environmental laws and regulations. It is also important to give credit to companies and individuals who behave in an environmentally responsible way. If the agency shames people, it must make sure that it gets it absolutely right. Simply totting up the fines imposed and then naming the companies that had received the largest fines was not, in my view, particularly scientific. I do not particularly want there to be prosecutions, but when prosecutions are justified, that is the most effective way of shaming companies. However, it is sad that often the courts did not impose the fines at a level that I and many others believe would protect the environment. In their response, the Government have made it clear that they are encouraging the courts to take environmental crime seriously.
  Mr. James Gray: At present, environmental cases are heard in the magistrates court, which cannot impose a fine above a certain level. Is there not an argument for allowing cases involving those crimes to be heard in the Crown court?
  Mr. Bennett: There are arguments about where these crimes should be tried. The real point is that strengthening the impact of the Environment Agency would lead to enforcement, and we would not need prosecutions. In a sense, a prosecution is a failure on everybody's part—but we need to get the message across that environmental crime is serious.
  554
  On planning issues, there is a problem. The Environment Agency is in most cases a statutory consultee, and if it says that a planning application is not a good idea, but does not send someone to the public inquiry, it has been assumed that the agency does not consider the matter very important. It is essential that the agency look carefully at the use of its resources, but if a planning application goes against environmental policy, it should try to be represented at the inquiry. I shall say more about that when I talk about flooding.
  It was hoped that the Environment Agency would be the country's environmental body, but with fly tipping there is a slight division of responsibility between the agency and local authorities. It was suggested, and I think that there is some evidence to confirm the idea—although the Environment Agency still denies it—that the landfill tax has led to an increase in fly tipping. We need more vigorous enforcement. Some people have to do the nasty job of going through the fly—tipped material to find evidence of whether it comes from industry—after all, industry and business have a duty of care when it comes to their waste—or from individuals. Those people should then be asked whether they really tried to dispose of that waste responsibly. If a bit more pressure was exerted by the Environment Agency with regard to one or two examples of fly tipping, the problem could be reduced.
  Mr. Rowe: An important issue in my area, and many others, is that the fly tipping of disused cars has become a huge burden for local authorities, partly because they are now expected to charge for taking in abandoned cars. People simply make the cars unrecognisable, take them to a nearby field and set fire to them, leaving the farmer with the damage, and a terrible mess. Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about that?
  Mr. Bennett: In the long term, the good news is that Europe is coming up with the end-use directive, which will require manufacturers to take cars back. I hope that over time, that will solve the problem. The only difficulty in the interim is that the car breakers have, in a sense, lost heart. Also, cars last longer; we do not have to go to the scrap yard to get replacement items for our cars after a few months. That business is a little rocky, but the long-term solution is the end-use directive. Incidentally, it is good that Europe is considering end-use directives for cars and white goods, but I would love it to issue an end-use directive for chewing gum—but I am moving away from the main issue.
  There are problems with abstraction licences. I hope that the legislation on water that the Government propose will come before the House, perhaps in the next Session, and will deal with abstraction licences.
  I would like the Environment Agency to take a much stronger role in giving the Government advice. The intention was that the agency would speak up loudly to the Government, but in all the discussions about what should go on at The Hague, about climate change and about the need for putting legislation in place, I have not heard a strong voice coming from the Environment Agency. In a sense, I think that the agency should be pushing harder than the Government, whereas my impression is that the Government are pushing hardest and the Environment Agency is following behind.
  The Select Committee was fortunate in that the Environment Agency arranged a visit for its members. It strikes me that it is quite hard for people to take Select

  555
  Committee members round and then put up with them asking difficult questions. However, the visit to the Somerset levels and to various sites in Bristol was extremely useful, and we saw some of the flooding on the levels. I suspect that most right hon. and hon. Members will want to put on the record praise for the work that the Environment Agency staff have done during the recent flooding. They have worked extremely hard. On Wednesday, the Select Committee heard evidence on flooding from Jeff Mance of the Environment Agency. He emphasised just how much sleep, and how much opportunity to be with their families, some of his staff had lost. I have great praise for all the staff and the work that they have done.
  We have to spell out that the flooding is almost certainly a result of climate change. I accept that the climate has been changing continuously over the centuries, but it looks as though human activity is changing the climate more quickly than before. Over the next few years we must think about substantial increases in flood defences. We must weigh up carefully how much it will cost us and the rest of the world to cope with climate change. It might be a much better economic investment to reduce our emissions rather than having to raise sea defences in so many places.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Somerset levels. Most people accept that more money must be spent on flood defences, and I am sure that a large part of our debate will be about that. However, the Somerset levels are a natural flood plain, and water has always settled on them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the moment we start to interfere with the natural flow of the water, we start to get floods elsewhere?
  Mr. Bennett: That is a key issue with flooding. There are lots of places where flood plains used to flood year after year. In some cases that was part of the agricultural method, and farmers were disappointed if there was no flooding and they did not get a bit of high-fertility silt on their land. When I was a child in Manchester, the Mersey meadows were deliberately flooded every winter. If we were lucky, they froze after they were flooded and people could go ice skating. So long as the water was not very deep, they were a safe place to go.
  Flood plains used to be used in that way, but in recent years planning permission has been given for people to build on them. In some cases, building on flood plains has gone ahead without the measures necessary to protect houses from flooding and divert water to an area where it can overflow. Like the Select Committee on Agriculture, our report recommended that the Environment Agency should have much greater powers to influence planning decisions to try to stop development on flood plains that could be disastrous for those people. People buying houses should be told if there is a chance of a flooding risk, but we should not make it impossible for people to sell houses in such areas; that issue needs to be explored. However, it is important that buyers know what the risk is.
  It is possible to live in a reasonably satisfactory way in a house that floods fairly regularly, so long as the part of the house that is likely to flood is designed without electrics and has a floor covering of tiles, or something similar, that can be easily dealt with. It should be possible
  556
  to move furniture and other belongings above the level of the floods. Unfortunately, some people have bought new houses without being warned of the consequences, and we have to deal with that problem.
  We also have to ask whether flooding is increasing as the result not just of climate change, but also of the speed of run-off. We must think about houses and industrial premises, as well as places such as supermarket car parks, that are being built, not necessarily in areas that flood, but when rain falls, all that hard-standing allows it to run off a little bit more quickly. When we took evidence this week, we were assured that the Government were considering building regulations. Those regulations should be adapted so that places such as car parks are made porous and can absorb water almost like a sponge, stopping it from running straight into rivers. A lot of work must be done on examining the way in which water can be retained in new developments, especially in the drier parts of the country where, despite the recent weather, water shortages in summer are possible. It would be more logical for people to store water on their own premises, rather than suffer from floods during one part of the year and drought during another.
  My hon. Friend the Minister needs to examine farming practices. Changes in those practices mean that ground that used to absorb large amounts of water at this time of year now allows it to run off. If one wants to put in a car park, one almost certainly needs planning permission, so it is slightly odd that someone who wants to change their agricultural practice from one that allows water to be absorbed to one that increases run-off does not need any such permission. The Government have been considering the idea of environmental guidance for farmers on such issues for nearly 15 years, and I hope that they will get a move on.
  I have taken up too much of the House's time, but I want to say that Members should consider this useful report. The Environment Agency has taken on board some of our recommendations and I hope that in the next few years it will punch its full weight—its 10,000 or so employees and the £600 million that it spends—so that we can improve the environment in England and Wales and give leadership to the world in trying to make ours a more sustainable society.
  10.6 am
  Mr. John Gummer: I should declare an interest as chairman of Valpac, which is a non-profit-making organisation with responsibilities for recycling packaging. I come into contact with the Environment Agency in several ways, as I do regarding other business interests that are related to the environment. I know a bit about the subject from the consumer's point of view. I hope that Members agree that we ought to have that kind of interest so that we can bring to the House the knowledge that comes from a passionate belief in the issues and their importance.
  The Environment Agency is crucial to the way in which Britain deals with the environment. I was the Minister responsible for setting it up, so I suppose that I must take both praise and blame. There is a good deal of blame to be apportioned, but that must be put in context, as the agency is a thoroughly proper organisation that does an essential job holistically. Prior to its establishment, a series of organisations did different things in different

  557
  ways and were often unable to do their job properly as the result of overlap and, more importantly, gaps in their work.
  I am sure that the Select Committee agrees that the Environment Agency is essential both in the nature of its work and the coverage that it offers. Indeed, that is made clear in the report, which makes a number of recommendations and remarks constantly on the commitment of those who work for the agency. I hope that the House will not lose sight of the important fact that the agency is stuffed full of people with remarkable commitment who want to get things right and who work hard on emergency tasks—that was especially apparent during the recent floods—and on many other matters. I had a sense that the report was talking about people with hands-on experience, not the management higher up. However, from top to bottom, people throughout the organisation have set a remarkable example of commitment.
  I wish to emphasise the changes that 1 should like to see, but I should like to stress that the organisation, in the main, does its job extremely well and is well worth supporting. Those of us who are concerned with management must begin with the organisation's management. I should like to echo what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said about matrix management, which is an ugly phrase. I am not sure whether anyone really knows what it means but, in some areas, it means that staff members are expected to do a range of jobs. They spend a few hours a week here and a few hours there on jobs for which they say that they have received training although, very often, those jobs are beyond their technical experience and ability. That is not a criticism of individuals. However, the structure causes real problems, in that those outside the Environment Agency who have an interest in part of the matrix find it hard to discover whether they are getting the total interest and commitment that they expect.
  I shall give an example from my own experience, in relation to which I have already declared an interest. The packaging directive is an example of the vital part played by the European Union in dealing with the environment in this country. In general, it is extremely good, setting standards and targets while leaving nations to decide how best to achieve them. That means that we need the maximum coverage of companies producing packaging, if the burden is not to fall unfairly on those that obey the law and not on those that do not.
  The key player in that process is the Environment Agency. Its task is to discover the people who are not doing their job properly, those who ought to register but have not done so, and those who are paying fees not for what they actually produce, but for a lower number that happens to be convenient for them. The sums involved are large, and avoidance is tempting. The fines imposed on those found to be avoiding payment are ludicrous compared with the savings to be made.
  Major companies do not want the opprobrium of being found to be incompetent or dishonest. Much of the process is, therefore, self-policing. I return to the sort of example that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish put forward when he was talking about landfill operators. The best companies do the job properly anyway, because the cost to them of doing otherwise would be not in a fine but in the effect on their public reputation. However,
  558
  many major companies are paying the cost of the packaging put on the market by those who avoid making the contribution required by law.
  I remain to be convinced that the Environment Agency is taking enthusiastic enough action against those who break the law, especially in relation to finding those people. That leads one to ask why the Environment Agency is unable to show in detail what it does with the fees that are paid to it. Fees, for example, are paid by those with an obligation to recycle and re-use packaging. Those fees are supposed to cover the costs incurred by the agency in carrying out its requirements under the law. The system is supposed to be self-financing.
  If the system is self-financing, it is reasonable to ask that those who pay the money ought to be able to see where the money goes. If they are dissatisfied with the service provided, the agency's first defence should be: "This is the money that you have paid; this is what we are doing with it. Now you can see that we are doing it properly."
  The first few years since the packaging regulations were introduced have been difficult, because the relevant figures have not been forthcoming. I am sure that the Minister will do his best to defend the Environment Agency on this matter, but I do not think that the figures were made available even to the Government. Those who are paying the piper and think that they know which tune ought to be played do not know what happens to their money, nor are they able to ensure that the tune is being properly played.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House who set up the structure? Did he envisage, at that time, that it would work in this way?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask who set up the structure. I feel so sour about the matter because it was not intended to work in this way at all. The system was supposed to be absolutely clear, but matrix management got in the way, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. Once people ceased to be specifically involved in doing the job, as they were when we set up the system, and once a system of matrix management was introduced in which no one was specifically involved, it became difficult to follow the costs. Matrix management may be right: it is not for me, or the Minister, to run the Environment Agency. However, if matrix management is necessary, it must provide clear accountability over spending and effective implementation of the purposes set out for it.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to allow me to take pride in the fact that I set up the agency. However, I remind him that the change has been a proper managerial change unaccompanied by the kind of fiscal probity that he would expect in a Department, and that I would expect in a public corporation.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that the right hon. Gentleman has some responsibility in this matter. I served on the Committee that set up the Environment Agency. At the time, we reminded the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that its structure lacked proper resources or manpower. The result is that

  559
  too few people now have to do more jobs. The right hon. Gentleman should review the current situation, because he is responsible for it.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not want to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is sheer nonsense for two reasons. First, we are talking not about a lack of resources but about a situation in which the fees should fully cover the cost of doing a job, and, if they did not, the Environment Agency could put them up. That has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Secondly, I was about to deal with the question of staff numbers. When the Environment Agency was set up, it had 9,000 employees. Part of the plan was that that number should be reduced—by contractorisation, by going out to other organisations, by becoming dynamic within the system—to about 5,000, because it was too big an organisation to be run effectively.
  There were no plans to reduce resources or people. The intention was simply to organise the agency in a way in which it could be properly run. It was not for the Government to lay down how that should be done, merely to say that they wished the agency to move in that direction, because it was too big. However, the numbers have gone up: the agency now employs 11,500 people. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that there are too few people—there are more people employed now than there were when we set it up. In many ways, the agency is able to tax, in effect, to meet its costs.
  The present resources were provided not by the previous Government, but by the present one. I was not going to complain about those resources, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me into a party political position that I do not hold in relation to the environment. I believe that our job is to get it right, whichever party we are in. I was not going to discuss those issues, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to do so, I have a better answer than he has on that subject.
  I return to the non-party position on which I wish to speak. I can talk on this subject without difficulty, because it involves money coming from industry at a rate determined by the Environment Agency, which advises the Government on the way in which it should be levied. The Government recently announced changes for which the agency asked. I do not happen to agree with those changes, but there we are. That is how the system works. The people who pay the money should know where it is going. They feel strongly that everyone should be involved and we feel strongly as a society that people ought to be committed to our environmental programmes. They cannot be so unless they know how the money is spent.
  The remarkable and distinguished Baroness Young is to become the chief executive of the Environment Agency and I wish her well. I am a little surprised that she is prepared to take on that tough job, but she will do it extremely well. I say to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that if that is not a non-party political comment, I do not know what is. Baroness Young has performed distinguished public service and is not afraid of speaking independently—even though she sits as a Labour peer.
  Baroness Young faces a formidable job. I hope that she will make greater use of those outside the agency so that she has a more compact agency to run. I hope that she
  560
  brings real improvements in morale so that people feel that everyone is pulling together. I hope also that, out of matrix management, she makes a more simplified and sensible structure to enable the rest of us and the agency to understand what is going on. Those are difficult things to do and they are easy for me to say, but I would be the last person to tell Baroness Young how to do the job.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to landfill, which is not the answer, rather the interim one. The finding of better answers ought to be an intrinsic part of the work of the Environment Agency. I declare an interest, in that I help a company involved in tyre recycling. I respect the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish very much, but I must tell him that tyre recycling is not as simple as he suggests. People have to pay for their tyres to be recycled. If there is a company that collects tyres and takes them away for free, it is doing a remarkable thing that none of us has heard about before. There are examples of the universal fly-tipping of tyres; people who rent land and buildings from farmers, get paid to take tyres away, put those tyres in the landfill, fill the buildings and then disappear, leaving farmers with buildings full of tyres for which significant sums have been paid. We have seen companies set up, with Government or City help, to try to recycle tyres. In almost every case, those companies are no longer in business and we have a serious recycling shortfall. I do not blame the Government, but their proposals on recycling tyres rely on many companies that are no longer operating. We are in a worse position today than a year ago—not because of Government action or inaction, but because the private sector has discovered that money cannot be made out of that industry. The Government must take action, and the Environment Agency must help.
  There is a thing called the tyre recycling committee at the DTI. That committee is not widely known, which is not surprising because it does not do very much. It has produced five reports; again, that is not widely known. I do not believe that many people have read them. Remarkably, the membership of the tyre recycling committee, which includes tyre makers and tyre retreaders, does not include a single tyre recycler. The reason for that is simple: the tyre makers and retreaders are interested in a system that does not charge them for the job of recycling.
  The Government should take a tough decision and say that it is the responsibility of the producers to ensure that they pay for the products which they recycle. That is the principle behind the packaging regulation. It is a cross-party principle; we introduced it in government and the present Government have continued to adhere to it. Why does it not apply to tyres? How can we have a tyre recycling committee which does not include people who could explain the realities of the business? I suspect that the matter has not been subjected to the pressure that we should have put it under.
  Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend may take some consolation from the fact that the Government have set themselves very high targets for the use of recycled paper, so there is at least a report recycling mechanism in place.
  Mr. Gummer: For the report to be recycled, someone must find it. That is another problem.
  The principle of producer responsibility must be enhanced. If that is to be the case, the Environment Agency must play an important part in ensuring that it

  561
  works. I wish to emphasise that part of the report; the need for the Environment Agency to play a bigger part in helping the Government to legislate properly in these areas. That is urgent because soon we will not be able to put whole tyres into landfill. We will have to find ways of chopping them up and some tyres—bus and truck tyres—are very difficult to chop up. We are not there yet and we need to get there. By 2006, we will not be able to put bits of tyres into landfill.
  I wish to refer to the effect on the Environment Agency and Britain of our membership of the European Union. The idea of an environmental policy which is not a European policy is batty. The things with which the Environment Agency deals are all, of necessity, things with which Europe has to deal as a whole. We export half of our air pollution to the rest of Europe. In return, we receive half of its air pollution. We cannot deal with pollution other than on a Europewide basis.
  I wish to refer to the Environment Agency's concern about the cleanliness of water. There is not much point in cleaning up our seas by cleaning up the outflows of Britain if the Elbe and the Rhine are pouring filth into the water from the other side. We need a common policy on water. Also, a very large number of our birds are migratory. If the Spanish drain their marshes and the Italians shoot those birds, we will not get them.
  Some of the most Euro-sceptical of thinkers have a limited geographical knowledge. I often wonder whether they think that this country is nearer to the United States than to the rest of Europe. Environmentally, we must be serious and say that we can only make progress from a common basis. What is more, we can prove it. Anyone who thinks that water standards in Britain would be what they are at present if it were not for our membership of the EU does not know the history. The reason why, at long last, our water standards are comparable to those of our neighbours is because we had to sign up for that—against the views of the industry and others. Those who are enthusiastic about privatisation—as I am—have to admit that we had to privatise because it was the only way to obtain the money to make the changes that had so lamentably been lacking while the industry was under state control.
  Mr. Gray: I am reminded of conversations I held with my right hon. Friend on these matters when I was his special adviser at the then Department of the Environment. Does he agree that, although he is correct to point out that environmental issues in general and air quality in particular are trans-boundary in nature and must be decided at a European level, many issues, such as the quality of our domestic drinking water, of our inland waterways and lakes and other UK environmental matters, should be for this place to decide? They are not matters for the EU.
  Mr. Gummer: That would be all right if we could make the distinction, but we cannot. Water is water is water. If we are trying to establish EU standards, we have to acknowledge that their management involves everyone having the same standards.
  There should be a minimum standard for drinking water across Europe. I want to be able to drink the water in Italy, because—I am happy to say—I am a member of the EU. I want the Italians to have the same minimum
  562
  standards as us. If my hon. Friend wants higher standards in Britain, I am all for that, but one of our great pleasures is that, at long last, we live in harmony with our European neighbours—on the day after Thanksgiving, we should give thanks for that—and can accept certain common standards. Why the blazes should we think that we can set up different standards for drinking water quality in Britain, just because we do not want common standards?
  Mr. Gray: Why not?
  Mr. Gummer: Because I want Italians to be able to drink UK water—that seems perfectly reasonable. As we are citizens both of the EU and of this country, we should be able to benefit from the advantages of that citizenship. I knew that my remarks would stir up my hon. Friend. It might be thought that I do so purposely, but there we are.
  As we are on the subject of water, I shall speak about flooding, on which serious issues must be addressed. There is concern that what is happening is caused by climate change. "Climate change" is the wrong description; it should be "climate disruption". "Climate change" suggests that we are moving from one climatic state to another. The most serious problem of global warming is that it makes extraordinary incidents much more likely—more storms and more hot periods will occur more regularly. All the evidence points to that.
  By probing the icecap and using other techniques, we can look back over 400,000 years. There is no period in which the temperature has changed as fast as at present. That is serious. Even if we do not accept the overwhelming consensus of scientific advice, we must accept that the effect of such change is extraordinary, while keeping a sense of proportion.
  Like my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, I believe that pollution has a considerable impact on global warming. That is only to be expected. A century ago, it took 100 years to produce a billion people; now, it takes 11 years. There are a lot of people on the planet and they produce a lot of pollution; it is hardly surprising that the atmosphere is affected. In the billions of worlds that we seem to have discovered, this is the only world—as far as we know—that can sustain life as we know it. Our world might be rather rare; as it is rare, it may be fragile, so we should be careful about that which sustains our life. The Environment Agency should take a more proactive role in reminding us of such matters. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is right to say that there should be a greater input from the agency so that the public is aware of current scientific views.
  There are several local issues. We must be much tougher about building on flood plains. I cannot understand why the Government have not included in their famed project for the house-buying pack the direction that the buyer should receive a statement as to whether the house is in a flood plain or is liable to flood. I have grave doubts about this famous pack; people will depend on it when it is unreliable. However, if we are to have such packs, that point should be included—as indeed should a compulsory energy measurement, so that people know how much it will cost to keep the house warm. If the pack is to be of any use, those two matters could easily be included.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Where did my right hon. Friend hear the news about the

  563
  house-buyers pack? I share his reservations, but I am not aware of any Government announcement on the subject—certainly none has been promised for today although the news has already hit the newspapers and other media. The matter is important and we have been awaiting the information for some time.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, but we have come to understand how the Government make their announcements. First, a little bit is dripped out, then a word here and a word there and we hear a little more. Then, there is a gradual growth of general consensus that the Government are going to say something—a rumbling is heard. Finally, when everyone knows about the matter—every newspaper has covered it, every commentator has remarked on it and I have written about it in Estates Gazette—it comes to the House of Commons. Hon. Members all know that we are the last people to hear—the announcements are made in advance and that is how we find out.
  I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Housing and Planning will soon ask to make a statement to the House on that matter, but no one will be in the Chamber because we shall all know about it already. The hon. Gentleman will say a word or two at the Dispatch Box and we shall be expected to hear it afresh—there are supposed to be gasps of "ooh" and "aah" on both sides of the House as the turgid rice pudding, which has long been out of the oven, is ladled out to the Chamber. However, I have given up trying to explain that flawed procedure; I simply accept that it will happen.
  However, that is not the subject of our debate, and I shall be in trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I continue along that route. The Government will be extremely cross even though these antagonistic points are being made in an entirely friendly way.
  The house-buyers pack could be well illuminated through the work of the Environment Agency. Why could there not be a system whereby people have to say whether the house they are selling is subject to flooding? We could have a grading system—from A to E, for example— for energy consumption. People might then do more to protect their houses. The system could also help home owners; they could be rewarded for work they had carried out—for example, double glazing or cavity wall insulation.
  Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman worries rather more than is necessary. As I understand the matter, the Environment Agency will, from the beginning of December, put maps of all flood plains on its web page, so the information will be available. The problem will be convincing people that they need to consult it. Of course, houses built on flood plains or at risk can be adequately protected, but the onus will be on the seller to demonstrate that.
  Mr. Gummer: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. However, my knowledge of house purchase suggests that it will take some time to encourage people to rush to the web page of the Environment Agency. I want to make the process as simple as possible.
  To finish my comments on planning, I shall refer to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about agriculture. I am not sure that any of us has an answer,
  564
  but one has to admit that the change in agricultural practices has had the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For example, in the village of Blythburgh in my constituency, the rather curious belief that pigs like being in the open air has had the effect that they are grazed and kept in a 100-acre field. Of course the effect that pigs have on the ground is wholly different from that of cropping. The water now runs off sharply into a village that has never before suffered from flooding, and 14 or 16 houses that previously were not subject to flooding are now regularly flooded because of a mixture of increased rainfall—the effect of global warming—the particular increase in rainfall this year, which might be a cyclical effect, and the fact that the water runs straight off without any protection.
  I commented on the welfare of pigs because, in their natural state, they live in forests, where they are protected from the heat and cold. Pigs cannot sweat. I sometimes wonder whether there is a great welfare advantage in the proposals of those who live in towns. Very often, they have no real understanding of the nature of the animals that they are trying to protect, as people discover when they see the number of chickens that are pecked to death in some of the welfare arrangements that are made for them, but that is another issue.
  The fact is that keeping pigs in fields changes the nature of the land and increases the run-off significantly. Frankly, we shall have to reconsider that. It is no good the Minister having a questioning look on his face. In a rotational system whereby pigs are on land for three years and off it for three, there is no doubt that flooding occurs in the three years when the pigs are on the land, not when the land is cropped. There is no argument about that, and we must consider how to protect people from its effects.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I do not necessarily completely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but there are welfare and, indeed, cost advantages to outdoor pig systems, and the kind of land that the pigs are kept on is the key. Many pigs are kept on well-drained land, but such problems may occur on heavier land. However, those problems can be tackled by a system of land rotation involving the outdoor units.
  Mr. Gummer: The Minister does not disagree with me. The problems can be tackled in that way, but such a rotation is not possible on all land. That is one of the difficulties that we must face. I do not suggest that there is an easy answer. The Environment Agency should be involved in that matter, but it is the one agency that is not involved. Evidently, because the problem did not happen to occur in juxtaposition to the river, the Environment Agency could not take it on. The effect of new agricultural practices on flooding must be looked at carefully.
  I shall make two last points, the first of which is that of punishment. I do not believe in there being excessive numbers of court cases. I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that court cases represent an admission of failure—the Environment Agency has failed to ensure that people have done what they should do voluntarily, or even under pressure or threat. That is a pity.
  If we are driven to take a case to court, the punishment must have some connection with the crime. We learn about such matters in the unfolding of a policy. The

  565
  problem is not that the maximum fines are too low, but that the courts have not imposed fines that are near enough to the maximum. The House determined the range of fines and perhaps they should be increased, but the fact is that people can be fined small sums for doing things that have netted them significantly large gains. We need to approach that matter with some vigour.
  The Government have sought to ensure that magistrates are aware of the effects, but that is not good enough. Perhaps we need ensure that such cases are held in a higher court. That might be the issue. I do not want to encourage them, but if people knew that being caught would cost them more than they have saved by not obeying the law, they would be more likely to do the job better. I hope that the Government will deal with that matter because, unless we get it right, the Environment Agency will feel entirely unable to do its job properly.
  The worst morale in the Environment Agency is found among those responsible for taking people to court. They find that the fines imposed are derisory and those who leave the courts put up two fingers because they know that they have saved themselves several hundred thousand pounds in the process. That also reduces the morale of the decent companies that have done their job and paid their money, but find that their competitor down the road has £300,000 on its bottom line. That is unacceptable.
  I return to research and advocacy matters. The Environment Agency is a powerful body. It would be a better and more powerful body if it were to concentrate on ensuring that it really knew the answers to the problems and on advocating those answers effectively to the Government and the public. Therefore, it must look at its organisation more carefully. It would be a better organisation if it employed fewer people directly and if it put out to others many of the things that it does directly. It does a huge range of things, from collecting boating fees in some places and patrolling rivers with water bailiffs in others to undertaking the vast responsibility of implementing European Union legislation and the national additions to it that our Government have placed on it.
  Within its large ambit, the Environment Agency should concentrate on the holistic business of ensuring that our environment improves all the time; on the research that is necessary to keep it ahead of the rest of the world; and on the advocacy that its experience and knowledge makes credible. It should increasingly seek to have a tightly driven and extremely efficient staff. I suspect that about 5,000 or 6,000 is much nearer to the number necessary for its core job. It could then control more effectively those who work for it indirectly through other agencies and organisations.
  If we put all that together, we can make matrix management work. The matrix would be simpler, the explanations clearer and the route by which the money is spent more obvious. That is not to tell it how to do its job, but to say that an organisation as big as the Environment Agency has increasingly failed to meet the specifications that it was given in the first place.
  I wonder whether we should return to the proposal made when we first launched the important change, which was to combine the three organisations to create one holistic agency and then to fine it down so that it would do the job that was essential for it to do directly and share its tasks with those on the ground who were more able to do the job as agents. If we did that, many of my criticisms
  566
  would soon be overcome and the work, enthusiasm and vocation that one sees in the activities of the very dedicated staff would begin to bear the fruit for which we all long.
  In many ways, the Environment Agency is the most important non-governmental agency that we have. It reaches into every part of our lives. It ought to reach further and to be more powerful and its voice ought to be heard more widely. It is up to the House to ensure that that happens.
  10.50 am
  Dr. Desmond Turner: The debate so far has been extremely interesting. No one would want to criticise the Environment Agency's basic aim or the expertise and energy of many of its staff. It is a valuable resource to the nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made clear in his opening remarks, however, we can make it much more effective if we check its relationships with other agencies, and planning authorities in particular, and sharpen its focus.
  I shall illustrate the point with some examples from my constituency, in all of which the Environment Agency should have a crucial role. The most obvious issue is flooding. I am glad that both my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke about the relationship between flooding and agricultural practice.
  Flooding has been a serious issue in my constituency. I would not normally be banging on about flooding in Kemptown, because it is built entirely on chalk downland. We do not have a flood plain in my constituency to worry about—but we do have flooding. One simply does not expect houses halfway up a chalk down to get flooded, but in practice they do, and it will happen with increasing frequency unless we do something about it. The Environment Agency should have a clear role in that, but although it has the expertise, it does not have the effective powers to control the situation.
  In the 1930s, Brighton spread a bit. It cannot spread too far because of the confines of the downs. Building spread up some of the dry valleys, or deans, as we call them in Sussex. They are areas that do not have rivers but drain, albeit slowly, large areas of rolling downland. The water comes down the valley and often feeds a dew pond. An estate that was seriously flooded recently was built over an historic dew pond, so it was unsurprising that when trouble came, that was where water collected.
  There was no serious problem with buildings on the downland fringe until relatively recently, after the war. Before then, the downs were used almost entirely as pasture land, and run-off from such land is relatively slow, because it holds water well. Chalk is highly permeable, so the water soaks into the ground and does not present much of a problem.
  During the war, the downs were extensively ploughed because of the need to produce more food, and that continued afterwards. More recently, arable production on the downs changed from predominantly spring crops to winter crops. There were economic pressures in the farming industry, and the way to get the best economic yield from the land was to grow winter cereals—and that is where the problems really start.

  567
  The ground has been not only ploughed but harrowed and seeded. It is sitting there, with a fine tilth on it, just as the equinoctial rains come. When they come with the force and severity of this year, and several years past, the run-off is dramatic: it is 10 to 100 times faster than it would be off pasture land or stubble. Not only is there a rush of water—great gullies are carved through fields, where rivers have suddenly grown from nothing—but soil is swept down with it, and houses are invaded by a wall of liquid mud. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the houses rely for their surface water drainage on soakaways. As soon as silt goes into a soakaway, it blocks and ceases to drain, so there is a real mess.
  The problem results from a common, but bad and unsustainable agricultural practice, which not only brings hazards to buildings and people but destroys the basic landscape, because chalk downland has a fragile soil system that is easily destroyed by ploughing. The only way genuinely to sustain a chalk soil system is by keeping the land as grassland.
  The problem is not confined to my constituency. Large areas of the south of England are affected, as there is chalk downland in Hampshire, Kent, Sussex, Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire, in all of which counties there is also severe housing pressure. Wherever houses have to be built on greenfield sites, those sites will almost inevitably be on the downland fringes and will be subject to the same sort of hazard as Bevendean in my constituency.
  There is an imperative to examine agricultural practice and change it. I have discussed these issues with Environment Agency officials in my area, and they are in total agreement with my analysis.
  Mr. Rowe: Implicit in the hon. Gentleman's important comments is the thought that houses built in flood risk areas should be designed in exactly the same way as those in other parts of the country, yet there are many places in the world where flooding is a regular danger so houses are built with a cellar, for example, or a garage underneath, so as to protect the main body of the house. Does he agree that it is time for the building industry to consider seriously the design of houses built in flood risk areas?
  Dr. Turner: I do not disagree. Certainly, if one builds in an obvious flood plain, that would seem a sensible precaution for the future. However, I refer not to houses built on flood plains but to those built nowhere near a flood plain. The advice and expertise of the Environment Agency should be made available more strongly to planning authorities. Indeed, more than its advice may be needed—we may need to examine the interaction of the Environment Agency with planning authorities, and, in certain circumstances, give the agency a virtual veto over planning applications in environmentally suspect locations, unless the planning authority, and the applications, satisfy the agency that environmental objections can be met. That would ensure that developments in such sensitive areas proceeded knowingly. If the relevant objections cannot be overcome, planning permission should not be given to construct dwellings or other buildings.
  Agricultural practice is critical, primarily because most of the risk in this context can be removed by changing that practice, ideally by going back to pasture—
  568
  preferably, proper downland pasture and not intensively fertilised pasture—or, as a second best, to spring cereal cultivation, because stubble fields do not cause anything like as much run-off as freshly cultivated winter cereals do. Policy changes could largely prevent such occurrences. That idea needs to be examined in a wider context, because development pressures mean that increasing numbers of such sites will be considered for development.
  That issue shows that the Environment Agency needs to be involved, and needs greater powers to control agricultural practices. That would secure sustainable agricultural practice, which would preserve the quality of our environment. Currently, the Environment Agency knows full well what is going on, but it cannot do much about it. In this context, it could—I hope that it will—ensure that knowledge is spread. All the information is detailed in a very good publication from 1995, the "Journal of Geography", but no one knew about it. Professor Boardman of Oxford university studied and analysed those events, and all his findings are available. However, no one had read his paper—certainly not the farmer who increased his area of ploughing so that it went down a slope to people's back gardens. When half his field went into those back gardens, the residents were not happy bunnies.
  Another example from my constituency involves a site called Portobello, which is right on the foreshore and on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty. Southern Water applied to build a massive sewerage plant in that exposed coastal location, but although, I am glad to say, permission has been refused by the county council, the matter is the subject of a planning inquiry. I do not expect the Minister to make any comment on the detailed planning issue because we are awaiting the announcement of the result of the public inquiry, so it is clearly sub judice.
  The Environment Agency's role and its relation with the planning process was open to criticism. That is not the fault of the agency but a question of its terms of reference, which were not really right. In the context of a sewerage works, the role of the agency is to grant discharge consents. It is solely concerned with the quality of the water discharged into the sea. For the purpose of satisfying the requirements for a discharge consent, the primary data concern nutrients. Fine—that is important—but the microbial content of the outfall is of much greater importance to the public. However, that was not really an issue. The quality of the water being pumped into the sea is not an issue at all in the planning process, which is a very curious oversight.
  We have a planning system and a discharge system that do not take into account the very things that the public are worried about, and a role for the Environment Agency that does not give it any input concerning the wider environmental implications of applications such as the one that I have described. Most of my constituents and I await with bated breath and fingers crossed—we have also crossed everything else that can be crossed—the outcome of this application, which has exposed an unfortunate shortcoming in the relationship between the planning system and the Environment Agency. That shortcoming should be addressed.
  I want to discuss a further issue affecting my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is looking anxious. I am sure that he

  569
  knows exactly what I am about to discuss—waste treatment. Government planning policy guidance PPG10 implies that because of the lack of landfill sites, there is considerable reliance on incineration to get rid of the residuum of the waste stream that is not recycled. The favoured option that is being considered and encouraged around the country is to obtain energy from waste. That, too, is of great public concern.
  A major criticism of guidance from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and of PPG10 is that, although the listed planning considerations for waste disposal facilities mention various factors—they range from a. to o.—not one of them refers to public health. The fact that public health implications are not a planning consideration is a major oversight. In that regard, the role of the Environment Agency is, once again, critical, because it is responsible for pollution monitoring.
  Incinerators, as everyone knows, have a reputation for being a grave health risk because of dioxin emissions. Unless organic materials are burned at a very high temperature, dioxin emissions will result. I am not much of a thermodynamicist—it was always my weakest subject—but I understand enough to know that it is difficult to maintain a combustion temperature of 1,200 deg C. If one takes further heat from that system to generate electricity, the task becomes that much more difficult, and if one uses such a poor quality fuel as domestic rubbish, one has a big challenge to convince people that one can continue the process safely and consistently without producing dioxins, which are carcinogens. People are genuinely worried, and the history of the first-generation rubbish incinerators illustrates why. Those incinerators produced massive quantities of dioxins, and, I am happy to say, have all been closed down by the Environment Agency.
  We are told that the new generation of incinerators will not do that. Those installations rely on modern combustion technology to produce energy from waste. However, hon. Members will probably have seen press reports about papers that warn of expectations that deaths will be caused by the pollution produced by such installations. The Minister told me that the data overstated the consequences 65-fold. I have tried to obtain the original material to discover the exact truth, but so far, despite the best efforts of the Minister's office, the Library, and even the Environment Agency, I have not been able to get hold of the actual data on which the prognostications were made.
  Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Lewes has many constituents who are desperately anxious about the consequences of having an installation in their area. Thousands of my constituents whose homes border his constituency are equally worried about that prospect, and there is the remote possibility that the installation might be in Brighton and Hove, in which case 250,000 people will be extremely anxious about pollution. It is vital that the truth, as it is best known at the moment, is made clear to the public.
  Mr. Loughton: I have been listening with great interest and agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not just 250,000 people who might be affected, but an additional 70,000 people in my constituency, which neighbours Brighton and Hove. In view of everything that he has says, it puzzles me why he has not been more vociferous in his criticism of the Labour council in
  570
  Brighton and Hove, which has the worst recycling record of any council in Sussex, and has been attempting to impose an incinerator on the borders of my constituency without consulting my constituents. Why has he not been more critical of his Government, whose policies will lead to at least 100 major incinerators being installed throughout the country?
  Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Let me make one thing clear. Brighton and Hove council has most emphatically not been trying to impose an incinerator on the borders of his constituency. It has made clear its intention not to permit an installation at Shoreham.
  Mr. Loughton indicated dissent.
  Dr. Turner: I am sorry, but that is the truth. The council is also aware of my views on the topic, and knows that I am not impressed by its recycling targets or its recycling performance. I have made no secret of that. I hear the hon. Gentleman's criticism and note that Adur council in his constituency led the country in recycling—I hasten to add that it was not, of course, under Conservative control at the time, so he should not take too much credit for that. None the less, Adur council had a good recycling record. There is no question about it, and I wish that Brighton and Hove council's record was as good. My colleagues in the council are aware of my thoughts on that matter.
  As for the involvement of the Environment Agency with incinerators and their emissions, I want it to make a very clear public statement that sets out in the public domain all the information that is available, so that people—not just in my constituency or in that of the hon. Member for Lewes, but all over the country—can make a considered judgment about the safety of those installations for the future.
  Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that it is all very well to say that we must not put waste down holes or decide to put sewage sludge in the sea or to spread it on the land, but not if we then say that we must not burn it either? The truth is that waste—some of which, such as sewage sludge, is unavoidable—has to be dealt with. Does he accept that it is not responsible to spread fears in such circumstances? He should be telling his constituents that if some form of waste treatment is necessary, he will insist, and try to ensure, that it is safe. He should not be frightening people, because we have to find a way to deal with the problem.
  Dr. Turner: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he is under the impression that I wish to spread fears about the installations, I apologise, because that is not my intention.
  No matter how successful we are in recycling waste, we also need to reduce it. We do not pay enough attention to that. We over-package to a vast extent, and that accounts for a large proportion of our domestic waste stream. None the less, however efficient we are in recycling waste, such as by making compost, there will still be a residue —perhaps in the order of 25 per cent.—that cannot be recycled, and needs to be disposed of in another way.

  571
  We are running out of landfill sites. It is unfortunate that policy guidance, which stems from the previous Government and has been continued by this Government, says that waste must be disposed of locally, because we cannot contain waste in that way. It is a regional and national issue, and we do not make enough use of our national landfill resources. For example, the enormous brick pits in Bedfordshire could take much more of the nation's rubbish than they do. The waste disposal authority in my constituency does not have any holes in the ground, and could not land-raise—which I would not want it to do anyway, because it is a barbaric practice.
  We must find a way of disposing of the residuum, so we must consider incineration. I say that with reluctance, and before the public will accept it, we have to demonstrate its safety. That is my point. The Environment Agency has the main role there. It could do a great deal to satisfy people's understandable fears. It is not me who has put the frighteners on concerning waste incinerators. People are already frightened, and I am trying to address those fears.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am listening carefully to the incinerator scenario. Has my hon. Friend ever thought of recycling waste to generate heat and power? Surely that is the way forward.
  Dr. Turner: That is precisely what we are talking about. I am not disagreeing that that process may have a legitimate role; that is not the point. The point at issue is that we must be sure that it does not result in emissions that are a danger to public health. That is the only point that I am trying to make.
  Mr. Gray: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and finding his comments very stimulating. However, I am puzzled by the position that he is taking. He seems to be saying that Brighton, Kemptown has no room for landfill, that land-raising is not possible there, and that he does not want the incinerator in his constituency—although he has slightly modified the latter point—but that Bedfordshire, or perhaps, my constituency, would be fine. "Not in my back yard, thank you very much." Given the perfectly sensible constraints that he is describing, such as ensuring that emissions are safe, it is surely up to his constituency to accept a jolly great big incinerator. Will he come clean by telling us whether he wants an incinerator in his constituency?
  Dr. Turner: The simple answer is that nobody wants an incinerator, but it must go somewhere. Nobody wants a landfill site, but some residuum may have to go somewhere. I am not advocating that everybody immediately rushes their waste to Bedfordshire. I mentioned it only because it already has massive brick pits—which form some of the ugliest landscape I have ever seen—that are used for landfill.
  Let us remember that if we recycle as much as we should, we are left with last-resort disposal. Even if we use incineration for disposal of the non-recyclable content of the waste stream, there will still be a residual ash that must be disposed of. We will never be able to avoid landfill totally. My point was that we have some
  572
  legitimate landfill resources. Some counties have it in massive quantities, while in other areas there is none at all. However, so long as we insist on excessively localised waste disposal, we can never as a nation make the best use of our opportunities. I am not saying "NIMBY", and that we should force things on somebody else, but we must approach the issue from a rational point of view.
  I return to the main thesis of my speech. The Environment Agency is the body in which our best expertise rests. It is the body to which we should be able to look to provide a rationale for our approach to many of our environmental problems. To ensure effective environmental protection, we need to do more than we are doing at the moment to clarify its role and its relationships with other agencies.
  11.23 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the most interesting elements of this debate is that the Government have hardly been mentioned. Yet, if one looks at the limits on the Environment Agency's capacity to become the champion of the environment, one must also look at its relationship with the Government. I have taken three points from the Government's response to the Select Committee's report.
  First, the Government state that, in fulfilling its role as the champion of the environment and sustainable development, the Environment Agency must
  have regard to guidance from the Government.
  That is a perfectly reasonable thing for the Government to say, but if they strongly disagree with the Environment Agency, who would win? If we are to have a serious champion, we need to be able to listen to the debate.
  The second point from the Government's response is that any disagreement with them must be discussed before the agency takes a public stance. In other words, before the Environment Agency says that it thinks that some element of Government policy is misguided, it must be subjected to all the arm-twisting of which the Government are quite capable. I wonder again how independent a champion that would make the Environment Agency.
  On the vexed question of the Environment Agency's recommendations, especially about the danger of building in areas that are liable to flooding, the Government state that an
  appeal may reach a different view on the balance between flooding and other material considerations.
  In other words, if the Government are persuaded that in order to reach their obscene target for building in the countryside they should override the Environment Agency's advice, that is exactly what will happen. In those circumstances, we must look rather carefully at urging on the Environment Agency the role of rottweiler on our behalf when we know full well that every time it opens its mouth the Government will slap a muzzle on it.
  Although in many ways I am happy to allow the consideration of the Lamberhurst farm application for a land-raising site in my constituency to remain undecided for as long as the authorities like, because it is an obscene proposal, we have nevertheless been waiting for the decision for months and months, and it might be time for them to say one way or the other. I know which way I hope the decision will go.

  573
  The relationship between the Environment Agency and farming has been raised in several different contexts. I have no clear picture of the Environment Agency's powers in relation to farmers' growing habit of ploughing into their fields the plastic with which they have covered their strawberries or other crops. Unless that is done extremely well and very deeply, fields are littered with little bits of plastic, which blow everywhere and are very unattractive. It would be interesting to know whether the Environment Agency feels that it has powers in that respect.
  Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a scheme to collect and recycle such plastic, but that it collapsed? Should not we have asked the Environment Agency why it did not play a more proactive part in ensuring that something was done about that? The question is not one of damage, but that the material could properly, and without too much difficulty, be recycled.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who knows far more about this subject than I shall ever know. I agree that the Environment Agency needs to look carefully at the growing use of plastic in British farming.
  As is sometimes said, I have seen the future and it sucks. I sat next to a farmer at the Marden fruit show. He is developing hydroponic horticulture at speed and with a degree of success. The flavour of the strawberries, herbs and so on that he gave me to taste was wonderful. I, who had always thought that hydroponics meant flavourless produce, was dumbfounded. Although that gives enormous hope to an industry that is otherwise on its knees and about which, as far as I can see, the Government care very little, it means huge expansion in the use of plastic in agriculture. If the Environment Agency does not take the matter on board and deal with it properly, we shall all be losers.
  One issue that has arisen from this debate, about which I feel strongly, is that the Environment Agency should have strong views on the design of new houses, to which we should pay a great deal more attention. Let me give one, rather trivial, example. If, in the plethora of rebuilt or brand-new kitchens that are created every year, there is only one, undifferentiated waste bin, a busy housewife—or householder—will, in the preparation of the evening meal, scoop all the waste into the same bin. If the presence of three bins in the kitchen units made doing so easy, it would be perfectly possible, without much effort, to differentiate the waste. A great many people in Britain would like to do more to differentiate their waste, but not if they have to create three separate heaps of plastic bags and carry them out individually in the pouring rain. The idea that one should build on a flood plain the sort of house that one would build in Bromley or Chislehurst is absurd. It is time that builders took seriously the notion that the danger of flood damage can be designed out of some of the houses that they build.
  The report is extremely useful and I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman on it. One of the implications of the report and in the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is that there is a conspiracy among householders to conceal from potential purchasers the fact that the house might flood, and that such risks must be made clear to such purchasers. There is little sympathy for householders. Fortunately, the worst of the flooding did not occur in my constituency,
  574
  but that does not mean that I do not acknowledge the human misery that it caused or that I am unsympathetic to those who suffered it.
  My constituency borders on that part of the Maidstone constituency that has suffered flooding five times this year, three times in the past two months. Yalding, which has always been known as the sump of the Weald, has appeared on every television newscast as one of the places where houses have been flooded repeatedly this year. The people who live in those houses have to suffer not only the great misery of flooding, but huge anxiety about their insurance and their insurance status. I read that the big insurance companies, such as Norwich Union, are being leaned on by the Government and are spontaneously deciding not to create a welter of uninsurable properties, but there is no doubt that the premiums that they will demand and the way in which they will handle the problem are a major issue. I hope that the Government will provide strong assurances that people whose houses have been flooded repeatedly will not be made pariahs by the insurance industry. It they are so treated, the Government should give serious consideration to schemes of the sort operated in Florida and California, in which the Government take some share of the liability.
  The vast majority of the houses in Kent that have flooded are not brand-new houses built by idiot builders on flood plains; many date from the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries and stood for hundreds of years without sustaining serious damage. All the changes about which we have heard so much in the debate—changes in agricultural practices and the creation of enormous areas of hard—standing which means that water cannot run off or does so far too fast and cannot be safely channelled—have made older houses vulnerable in ways that are no responsibility of their owners. Householders in that position are not only to be pitied for the horror through which they have passed in the past few months, but for the great damage that has almost certainly been done to the value of their largest asset.
  Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if associates at Salomon Brothers are to be believed, up to 1.2 million houses may be affected by an increase in insurance premiums of about 60 per cent.? Does he agree that the000 pitiful £51 million promised for flood defences in the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which works out at £13 million a year, is a tiny drop in the ocean and wildly inadequate to cover the sort of damage that those households face?
  Mr. Rowe: I agree. When the final bills come in, they will be colossal. Not only must there be far greater expenditure on flood protection once we have analysed what has happened—a job for the Environment Agency if ever there was one—but a way must be found to ensure that those unfortunate people are not stripped of the value of their asset. Although I am wholly in favour of making it easier for potential purchasers to discover whether a risk of flooding is associated with the house they intend to buy, we must also give consideration to those whose assets have been destroyed by the recent phenomenon of flooding.
  Mr. Gummer: I hope that my hon. Friend does not focus solely on inland areas that are affected by flooding.

  575
  There are 74 miles of coast line in my constituency; severe cutbacks in MAFF support for sea defence, which have featured strongly in the past three years, have resulted in many of my constituents being threatened by the sea in a way that they were not previously threatened. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in urging the Government to restore the former rates of support and to increase them in local authority areas that are so threatened.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful for that intervention. The Government face a major and difficult issue. In truth, there is something wasteful about putting one's finger in a dyke that is bound, ultimately, to give way and I understand the argument that, in respect of some parts of the coast, the only thing to do is give up. However, I have for many years been a proponent of changes being made to the law on blight—I founded the all-party blight group, which has had some effect on Government policy—and I believe that the problem to which my right hon. Friend refers is a new form of blight.
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I understand that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) will have to leave the debate and I should not like him to miss what I have to say. There has been no Government reduction in coastal defence spending. There may well be regional differences, because regional flood defence committees propose different programmes in different years, but, under the Labour Government, the overall national spend has increased year on year. The only reduction in the national spend in the past decade occurred between 1994 and 1995.
  Mr. Rowe: My specialist knowledge of the subject is nil, so perhaps I should leave this cliffhanger of a debate to others.
  Mr. Gummer: It matters little if a place elsewhere in the country gets more money if there is an increasing problem of rising tides in one's own area and the Government reduce the proportion of the money that they provide. The point is that the local authority has to raise more money than it once had to because of the decrease in the sums coming from central Government. It is no good quoting the total, without mentioning the fact that my constituents have to find more money because the Government have handed out their money to a place somewhere in the north.
  Mr. Rowe: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but cannot elaborate on it, save to say that, given how great a thorn in the Government's flesh he is, I can well understand their desire to erode his constituency altogether.
  On river protection, I have personal experience of what I consider to be well-intentioned feebleness on the part of the Environment Agency. I declare an interest. I fish in the Kentish Stour, which the last significant chalk stream in Kent. It passes under the pavilion in which Jane Austen wrote one of her novels, and has been almost unchanged for centuries. It is extraordinarily beautiful to look at and is extraordinarily important as a habitat for wildlife.
  576
  The river has been systematically undermined by abstraction carried out by the water companies. I held a meeting in this place with a number of the agencies concerned, planning authorities and so on. The Environment Agency had already confirmed that the Stour was under enormous threat. We must remember that the River Darenth in Kent had completely dried up and that, although it has been artificially restored in response to huge public pressure, it remains vulnerable.
  When the Environment Agency stated that the Stour was at huge risk, just as the Darenth had been, the representative of one of the water companies present said, "If I had to choose between a man washing his car in Ashford and the protection of a river, I know which I would choose." He was quite clear that, in his view, the man washing his car had preference over some weird group of people—self-interested fishermen and others—who wanted to keep the river. The representatives of the Environment Agency looked despairing, and when I asked them afterwards about the prospects, they said that very little could be done.
  The river is under enormous threat and will eventually disappear, because Kent has little water supply. It seems ironic that for four consecutive years, we were so dry that the water companies produced a model garden of plants that did not require any water, such as lavender. Now, no doubt because of the same circumstances of global warming, we have amazing floods.
  The Environment Agency's power and confidence in its ability to influence the relevant decisions are too weak. We must protect the rivers.
  Mr. Bennett: Clearly, one of the problems is the archaic system of abstraction licences. The draft legislation that is to come before the House on the water industry contains provisions to sort out that system.
  Mr. Rowe: I wish I were confident that sorting out the system would mean that less water was abstracted from the rivers. I have my doubts. In recent years the state of the water industry has often been used as an excuse for not building any houses at all, so the influence of the Environment Agency on plans to build houses has been greatly reduced.
  I am not entirely sure that I have got this right, but I understand that the Environment Agency is now back as a consultee, its predecessor having been deprived of that position for a while. However, it is a nominal consultee, and its opinions do not carry great weight. If we in Kent must accept the number of houses that the Government tell us we need, it is not clear where the necessary water will come from. The Environment Agency should be much more proactive in that debate.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—I believe it was he—said that it was a great shame that there was no way of storing the rainwater that ran off. When I did my national service in the Navy, I remember being very impressed by the way in which Gibraltar manages to secure much of its water, using concrete cliffs to catch the rain as it fell and store it in huge underground reservoirs.
  Some of the water that runs off at great speed should be channelled into reservoirs, from which it could be taken and purified. That would be a great deal better than simply letting it flood people's houses and disappear to no purpose, especially in counties such as Kent, where water is in such short supply.

  577
  I end on a subject on which I have no specialist knowledge. I have a prejudice which leads me to think that compared to activity on the surface of the sun, human efforts to influence climate are pretty puny. We may well be hubristic in our idea that the best way to prevent global warming is through pollution control measures. I remember when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew up, it was said to have put more muck into the atmosphere in 24 hours than the whole of human pollution for the previous 10 years.
  Natural forces are colossal, and we may be exaggerating the effects of global warming, but if we are not over-estimating the effects of pollution on global warming, what on earth are we doing about the aviation industry? What relationship does the Environment Agency have with that industry? I do not know whether it is because Prime Ministers and presidents prefer flying to any other mode of transport, but for every airport in this country, a massive growth in air travel is envisaged over the next 25 years.
  Nobody can tell me that that does not mean a lot more aeroplanes jettisoning fuel in order to land somewhere other than originally intended. Huge quantities of emissions will be released into the atmosphere at a level that I would have thought was even more dangerous than the level to which our normal pollution extends. If we are serious about human efforts to control global pollution, should we not think carefully about how fast and how large an increase in air travel we want? What is the role of the Environment Agency in that?
  11.47 am
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate on the sixth report published by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and the response from the Environment Agency. I am also pleased to be a signatory to the report as a member of the Select Committee. I consider that the work of the Environment Agency is important to the House and to the nation. As I mentioned earlier, I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill under which the Environment Agency was established.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who at one time I thought was the meat in the sandwich between my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when they argued about the money spent on coastal defences.
  I believe what my hon. Friend said. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal revealed today that he accepts that, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he made a great number of mistakes in the Bill establishing the Environment Agency. It is pleasing to note that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges his shortcomings but, unfortunately, many people have suffered as a result of those mistakes.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent mention some of those with regard to property planning, especially in flood plain areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) pointed out, however, the matter does not rest there. Other areas create problems for properties because of excess water. Normanton is not designated as a flood plain, but our open drains are surcharged because of the number of properties
  578
  that are being built in the area adjacent to the surface drains and because proper attention is not given to the need to consider planning applications comprehensively.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, the Select Committee took evidence last Wednesday from the Environment Agency and from the Minister for Housing and Planning on proposals for future housing development, especially on flood plains. We were told that the Environment Agency had warned planning authorities that some planning applications did not accord with good practice. It advised some authorities that the design of properties meant that they would flood and that the people who owned them would suffer from such planning.
  The Committee was surprised to learn that the Environment Agency has no powers on planning advice and applications. We were encouraged, however, when the Minister for Housing and Planning said that a new planning regulation guide was to be introduced, whereby the Environment Agency would have more influence on planning applications for the development of properties on flood plains by supplying advice and information on their value. That is encouraging, as it shows that the Government are listening and considering how to prevent the problems that we have witnessed in recent months.
  The issue was highlighted because planning policy guidance note 25, which was issued recently, sought to address the flooding that occurred the previous year, especially in Yorkshire. That showed that the Government were working to guide planning authorities on planning matters regarding flooding. A great deal of work is being initiated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that the flooding that we have witnessed during the past few months does not recur. I look forward to further discussions with the Environment Agency and the Minister about progress on trying to prevent such flooding.
  I witnessed flooding in my area. Water was not in the properties, but very nearby. The flooding occurred over the general area because its housing estates were developed with little thought to drainage. That created problems for some of my constituents, so I look forward to further debates on planning.
  A great deal has been said about landfill sites, which are a serious matter. My constituency contains a large landfill area called Welbeck, which has been with us for the past 20 years. The site is a problem. The landfill process is reclaiming an area from which clay was removed for brickworks, which contains spoil from colliery waste and which suffers general dereliction. A decision has been made to reclaim the land by landfill. I have no objection to that, as I believe that we should reclaim areas that can be improved for the environment and the general good of the community.
  The management of landfill sites creates problems for the local people. Two miles of the River Calder run through the Welbeck site—a fact that shows the size of the landfill area. It is important to safeguard the river and ensure that it is not polluted, but we must also ensure that no pollution goes into local communities.
  As Member of Parliament for Normanton, I must try to ensure that my constituents, and also those in neighbouring areas, are safeguarded in respect of the planning and organisation of the landfill site. There are tremendous concerns about the issue. Although the

  579
  Environment Agency has been established and took into consideration the views of three organisations that were acting as environment agencies before the Environment Act 1995 took effect, questions remain about where some responsibilities lie, as local authorities still have responsibilities for environmental matters.
  The responsibilities set out in the Animal By-Products Order 1999 are among those that still belong to local authorities, but the Environment Agency is the major organisation for the care and safeguarding of the environment. There are differences on where responsibility starts and where it ends. I should like to give my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary an example of which I believe he should take note and which will help him in trying to resolve the problem. In April and May of last year, 68 tonnes of untreated meat were disposed of in the Welbeck site. That should not have been allowed, and it caused a great deal of anxiety in the area.
  I approached the Environment Agency to ask what action would be taken against the people who had breached the regulations, as they were responsible for polluting the area. I agree with the theory that the polluter should pay and I asked who would take action. The Environment Agency said that it was for the local authority to do so under the Animal By-Products Order. I took up the matter with the local authority, which said that it was for the Environment Agency to sort out. I then had to ask the relevant Minister to judge who should be responsible for taking action on the breach of law. The problem has not yet been resolved, although it arose 18 months ago.
  The local authority, which is responsible for the environment in which the community lives, sent a warning letter to the landfill operator, the Waste Recycling Group, advising that such disposal should not happen again, but that is not on. People who cause such pollution should not be dismissed with merely a slap on the wrist. So much that took place demonstrated, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there was a weakness in the management of the landfill site. There should be a more rigorous investigation. An operator of a landfill site incorrectly disposed of 17 lorry loads of meat and received a warning. However, aged constituents who are five or seven days late in paying their council tax are summonsed. Fairness must be applied, and the polluter should pay.
  In February 1999, reference was made to the health hazards that could develop around a landfill site such as the Welbeck site. In a report in the local newspaper, the Wakefield Express, on 26 February 1999, the public were advised
  Health checks on people living nearby will now be fully assessed, after medical evidence suggested the public—in particular pregnant women—could be affected by so-called "special" waste.
  In this instance, the special waste is meat and other deposits.
  I took up the matter with the Environment Agency. I wanted to know who was responsible for organising the health checks. I received a letter from the regional director. I have a good relationship with the agency in the Yorkshire and Humber region. It is always willing to help and there is full co-operation. However, where does its responsibility start and end? That is one of the problems that we are trying to resolve.
  580
  I was advised on 31 March 1999 by the agency that health checks were not its responsibility. I was told that it was a matter for the local authority. The health effects on people living near to landfill sites are to be assessed. I refer to the small area health statistics unit study, which has been commissioned by the Government. However, no one has accepted responsibility for the advice and information that was given by the Wakefield Express on 26 February. That is not good enough. If people are informed about the possibility of health hazards arising from landfill sites, that process should be followed through.
  A few weeks ago, a person living near the landfill site was granted £1,000 in compensation by the local ombudsman because he had not been given information about the site when he moved into the area. That information should have been provided by the local authority. We must do a great deal more to safeguard the interests of those who live and work near to landfill sites.
  Recently, I received a report from a constituent, who advised me that one of the employees on the site is responsible for monitoring dust, noise, water and toxic waste. Another employee is responsible for deciding what is special waste and what waste should go into the cells on the site. Surely that is a responsibility of the Environment Agency. The agency should be monitoring pollution, be it from dust, toxic waste, water or noise. It should not be for an employee to register whether there is a breach of pollution regulations. The decision on what waste should be deposited in the site and the recording of it should not be the responsibility of the employee who drives the dumper truck and puts the waste into the cell. Responsibility for activities in landfill sites should be more precisely clarified.
  As I have said, I wrote to the Minister for the Environment. I received a reply from Baroness Hayman, Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. She advised me that the matter is covered by the Animal By-Products Order 1999, which
  places the obligation to comply with the Order on any person who has animal by-products in his possession or under his control. We take the view that this means that the originator of the waste, the collector and the person who disposes of it (eg the landfill operator) would each be responsible for ensuring that it was disposed of in a legitimate manner.
  As it was not disposed of in that manner, I consider that there should be a further investigation. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary examining the matter.
  The Environment Agency should pay more attention to the supervision of landfill sites, especially the larger ones. As I said in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I suggested when he set up the Environment Agency that it would have insufficient resources and insufficient manpower. He outlined what he considered would have happened if the Conservative Government had continued to have responsibility for landfill operators and the agency.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the idea was to privatise many of the Environment Agency's functions, and that the number of agency employees has increased from 9,000 when he had responsibility for the agency to 11,150. I believe that the staff number has increased because—as we pointed out in Standing Committee—the agency was understaffed initially.

  581
  God forbid that some of the agency's functions should be privatised. We know what happened when the previous Government brought in private operators to run the railways, the state earnings-related pension scheme, housing and health. If some of the Environment Agency's functions had been privatised, we would be in a terrible mess.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on which of the Environment Agency's activities were to be privatised and on what effects that would have had?
  Mr. O'Brien: Sadly, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal did not tell us which functions he was going to privatise. Today, however, as Hansard will show, he said that it was planned to give some of the functions to other operators. However, he did not say which responsibilities would be affected.
  The possibility of privatising some of the functions was mentioned even in Standing Committee. Fortunately, however, in 1997, we had a change of Government, enabling the agency to develop and continue the work that it was established to do. However, although much has been done, there is still a great deal left to do.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned the anomalies that have been revealed with introduction of the packaging waste regulations. I believe that he got the percentages wrong in the initial regulations. Now, as an adviser to Valpac, he is saying that the regulations should be changed. However, in 1996, when he made the decision on the regulations, he said that they would not be reviewed for five years. That caused turmoil and suffering in the packaging waste industry. Fortunately, although discussions and consultations are continuing, the regulations were revised within 12 months of the election of the current Government, so as to re-balance responsibilities and percentages within the packaging waste industry.
  Nevertheless, we are three years behind Europe in addressing the packaging waste issue, because the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, as the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the then Government were not pressing to introduce packaging waste regulations.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that the United Kingdom should be a leader on the waste control issue, and I think that we could be if we had co-ordination between local authorities, the Environment Agency and the Government, so that they all worked as they should. However, I also feel sure that the work that is being done will be built upon, and that our report's recommendations—most of which have been accepted by the agency—will enable some progress.
  I should like to deal with a matter that has already been mentioned briefly today— responsibility for inland waterways. Two agencies—British Waterways and the Environment Agency—have responsibility for the inland waterways, and each has a department to discharge that responsibility. I think that the time has come to consider establishing one agency to manage the waterways. I believe that, as British Waterways has the singular responsibility for caring for our canals, rivers and coastal areas, it should have responsibility for our inland waterways.
  The Transport Sub-Committee is conducting an inquiry and taking evidence from many people on how to manage the inland waterways.
  582
  As we are considering the responsibilities of the Environment Agency and the way in which it is managed, I consider that I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw attention to the duplication of services. Perhaps we will look into that in future.
  Let me place on record my appreciation of the people who have helped the Committee draw up the report, to the Clerk and the Officers serving the Select Committee, to those who drafted and presented the evidence, to the members of the Committee and to the Chairman who worked very hard to make sure that the Committee received all the relevant information, worked in accordance with the rules set down by Parliament and presented reports such as the one we are considering this morning.
  I should also emphasise the need for clearer demarcation between the environmental responsibilities of the Environment Agency and those of local authorities. I feel that I am witness to a great divide that it not to the benefit of my constituents, the agency or local authorities. I leave that point with my hon. Friend the Minister. My case rests on the evidence that I have put forward and I ask him to look into the matter. I have no hesitation in commending the report to the House.
  12.16 pm
  Mr. Roger Casale: I start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and wishing you all the very best for what I know will be a long and distinguished career in the Chair.
  I should like to make a few comments about the part of the Select Committee report that refers to the powers that the Environment Agency has and those that it should have in relation to flood plain development.
  I raise the matter not just because of the recent bad weather and the spate of severe flooding in many parts of the country, although that has brought the issue of flood plain development into much sharper focus. Nor do I do so because today is the last day of the climate change conference in The Hague, although recently we heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that flooding and bad weather were in part due to climate change and that we should be prepared for more of the same unless climate change can be slowed down or reversed.
  The reason for my contribution is that ever since I was elected to Parliament in 1997, I have received constant representations from my constituents and organisations in my constituency, drawing my attention to the problems referred to in the Select Committee report and to the shortcomings of the present system of regulation with regard to flood plain development.
  The matter has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions, at my constituency surgery, during visits around my constituency and in letters. Only recently, Mrs. Margaret Pye of the West Barnes ward has been in correspondence with me in regard to two specific applications that seem to be about to get the go-ahead from Merton council in areas of my constituency that are liable to flooding. Mrs. Jill Truman of the West Barnes and Raynes Park residents association and the many hundreds of households that her organisation represents have been in correspondence with me for a long time about those issues. I have also heard from the planning committee of the Wimbledon Society and its secretary,

  583
  Mrs. Pat Keith, and Leonard Mostyn, the chairman of the Wimbledon Union of Residents Associations that brings together about 30 residents associations in my constituency.
  My constituents and their organisations are worried about the fact that the Environment Agency apparently has inadequate powers in relation to planning applications. My constituents see the Environment Agency as a body that will take proper account of the relevant environmental issues in relation to planning, but they want to know that its view and any assessment that it makes, which they believe has a great deal of credibility, should have more effect and not just be overridden or ignored by the planning authorities. Perhaps my constituents and their organisations in Wimbledon will take heart from the results of the Select Committee inquiry into the work of the Environment Agency. They will see from the conclusions of the report, which reflected those of a similar report by the Select Committee on Agriculture on the work of the agency, that there is a need for local planning authorities to take much fuller account of the agency's advice in respect of flood plain developments.
  My constituents will also ask, as do the reports, for much greater weight to be given to the Environment Agency's assessments by the planning inspectorate and the Secretary of State when planning applications are called in for appeal. If the Environment Agency's warnings that flood plain developments should not go ahead because of the flood risk are ignored or overridden at the initial planning stage, it should be possible for the planning inspectorate and the Secretary of State to take much fuller account of those representations at the appeal stage.
  In both these respects, my constituents will share the Environment Agency's concerns about the recent actions of my local council of Merton. It continues to permit flood plain developments even on sites in which the council has an interest and could itself decide that it will not develop there rather than just resisting the attempts by private developers to develop the site. The agency advises against such developments, not only because of a risk of flooding on those developments but because, if allowed to go ahead, they will often pose a risk of flooding elsewhere.
  We know from recent events just how much disruption and misery flooding can cause families, businesses and communities right across the country. Many of the losses caused by flooding are irreplaceable; much of the damage and trauma is irreparable. Perhaps that is why one of the Select Committee witnesses said that such flood plain developments were often nothing short of a disaster waiting to happen.
  Planning authorities must take a number of factors into account when assessing individual applications. I am not arguing that they should take into account only environmental considerations and the risk of flooding—clearly, they must take a wider view. In coming to a decision, however, they should be made to take much greater account of the Environment Agency's view. It is not simply that the risk of flooding and the damage it causes is so serious—it is clear from the report that the Environment Agency does very valuable work in itself, as those of us who have come into contact with it know.
  584
  Its assessments are not scaremongering but have a sound scientific and factual foundation and are often proved to be right.
  I would not go so far as to argue that the Environment Agency should have an effective veto on all developments, but its role, its voice and its reports need to be taken more into account. The role of the Environment Agency in considering local planning applications needs beefing up. The agency needs to be given greater powers—it needs more teeth. Let me give some practical examples of what I mean by that.
  Where developments are permitted against the advice of the agency, I believe that there should be a duty on the developer to put proper flood protection measures in place. Even if the development is to go ahead and the advice of the agency not to allow it is not followed, at least the risk of flooding that the agency has drawn attention to should be taken into account by the planning authorities. The Environment Agency should be given powers to impose a duty on developers to put measures in place to reduce that risk. That would be an example of a practical power that could be given to the Environment Agency so that some of its work would be reflected in the final outcome. If a development were allowed to go ahead despite the risk, at least that risk could be mitigated to some extent. The cost of putting in place proper measures on flood protection should be borne by the developer.
  Similarly, there should be provision for an urban drainage system, and perhaps some drainage measures will need to be strengthened if particular developments are allowed to go ahead. Again, the cost of that should be borne by the developer, and the Environment Agency should have power to recommend that extra measures are taken. Planning authorities should be able to make acceptance of planning applications conditional on such provision being made.
  A full technical investigation of the extent of the flood risk, to which the Environment Agency will have drawn attention, should be carried out in the area where the development is taking place, as well as further afield where flood risk may increase as a result of the development. Those who seek to build on flood plains and those who permit such developments should recognise that they do so at risk not only to themselves but to those in other areas who may be put at increased risk of flooding. Risks to others should be properly assessed, and the cost of measures to mitigate those risks should be borne by the developers. I hope that the Government will draw that conclusion from the Select Committee report.
  Finally, I return to the work and representations of my constituents and the organisations in my constituency that I mentioned earlier. We should never underestimate the value of such representations, which should be given greater weight in planning matters, especially in relation to developments on flood plains.
  Often, the real experts on the benign effects, or otherwise, of developments are local people themselves. Local residents are the ones who have to live with those developments and suffer the damage caused by flooding. Sustainable development must mean development that is sustainable for the local community, residents and people who live on the doorstep of new developments. Local residents often have to live with the consequences of any such development. Local people also have detailed local knowledge and experience, often going back years and

  585
  decades, of potential risks in their area, not least the risk of flooding. We need to do more to tap into that knowledge which, together with the will and interests of local people, must become much more part of the decision-making process.
  We should listen to residents and their representatives much more and involve them in decision making, as organisations such as the Wimbledon Civic Forum in my constituency have sought to do. We should empower local people by giving them access to the information that they need to make an informed judgment on these matters. In that connection, I strongly advise the Government to allow the Environment Agency to publish its flood maps on the internet. The public should be able to have direct access to information on the degree of flood risk. Steps should also be taken to make known to the public which buildings in a given area are at particular risk from flooding, perhaps by means of a plaque or sign on the wall.
  In the aftermath of the severe floods across Britain, the Environment Agency will, at the request of the Government, conduct a review of lessons learned. I hope that the Government will act on that review, learn the lessons of the floods and, in doing so, respond as positively as they can to the Select Committee report and the representations of my constituents, the organisations that I have mentioned and many others. I hope that they will tighten the planning process with regard to flood plain developments and give local people the information that they need to be properly aware of flood risk. I hope that they will give the Environment Agency the powers that it needs to reduce such risks effectively.
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Tim Loughton: This is my first opportunity to offer you my congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, although they may be rather passé by now. However, I offer them all the same.
  The Opposition welcome this comprehensive report, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The report was, as he said, published more than six months ago, in May. It is a shame that the House has not had the opportunity to debate its contents before now, especially as the subject has taken on a new importance in the light of the recent floods. Many lessons might have been learned before those floods took place. I presume that that is why the Minister with responsibility for flooding and coastal defences, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is handling the debate, rather than the Minister more directly responsible for the Environment Agency.
  The debate has been interesting and wide ranging, and it has afforded hon. Members the opportunity to take us round the world on a variety of subjects including tyre shredding, outdoor pigs, the hazards of Italian drinking water and an end-use directive on chewing gum, promulgated by the Chairman of the Select Committee. We also witnessed a learned delivery on agricultural land use by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who betrayed himself by the rather lofty intellectual nimbyism of supporting the idea of any authority dealing with his constituents' waste—so long as it was not his own authority.
  586
  The debate also afforded the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) the opportunity to trip deftly through his electoral roll. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised interesting points about the importance of design when building on flood plains, and the possibility of incorporating different kinds of rubbish disposal facilities into the design of new houses. He gave the example of what happens in Bromley and Chislehurst, which was apposite because I am sure that the only reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not present today—as he usually is on a Friday morning—is that he is a regular devotee of the Bromley and Chislehurst bottle bank and composting depot. Indeed, I am sure that he is there now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent also touched on the subject of abandoned cars. I hope that the rural White Paper that we may discuss on Tuesday will address that issue, and respond to some of the proposals put forward by the Conservative environmental team during the summer, about distinguishing between the roles of the police and the local authorities in dealing with abandoned cars and allowing the retention of fines of fines locally to address the problem. We wait with great keenness to hear what the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will have to say about that.
  On the report, let me start by saying that the Environment Agency is a good thing. We all agree that it was right to set up an integrated environmental body, formed out of the former National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and 83 other waste regulation bodies. At the time, the creation of the Environment Agency was described as one of the most complex tasks in recent public and private sector history. However, it was skilfully guided through the House, although hon. Members did not give him much credit for it this morning, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—who has now left to attend an event in his constituency. When he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he was widely acclaimed as a champion of environmental issues, and he retains that reputation.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the ugly phrase "matrix management", for which we await a real definition. A different sort of matrix has come to haunt us today. It was slightly opportunistic of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) to apportion so much blame to my right hon. Friend for any shortcomings that the report attributes to the Environment Agency, and to fly kites, when my right hon. Friend was no longer here to respond, about possible privatisation fears, on which he was unable to elaborate. My right hon. Friend was in charge of the agency for one year and one month, whereas the Government and the DETR have been in charge of the Environment Agency for more than three and a half years, and have had opportunities before now to bring in changes if they thought them necessary.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the details behind my comments are on the Hansard record of when we debated the legislation. We supported the principle of the legislation, but our questions about the details were not answered by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. I consider my

  587
  criticism justified, although it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman is not still here. However, the matters to which I referred can be read about in Hansard.
  Mr. Loughton: The Environment Agency is a large creature and it is not inconceivable that certain of its activities may not be exclusively handled by full-time employees of the agency, which carries out some form of contracting out or privatisation. The Government may wish to look at that matter in future if they are to institute reform or improvement of the way in which the agency is run.
  Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that he would like the Environment Agency staff to be reduced from 11,000 to about 5,000. In that downsizing exercise, one of the issues would be how far the rivers work could be contracted out. During the recent floods, the full-time employees have put in a phenomenal amount of work, and it is not particularly good for their morale to talk about downsizing. Also, there is a difference between getting one's own staff to put in phenomenal hours to deal with a problem, and getting contractors to do the same.
  Mr. Loughton: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I do not take a view on it, one way or the other. I do not necessarily agree that people who would work beyond their normal hours in an emergency are exclusively those who work for a public agency; that happens in many other contracted-out activities. People are contracted to do a job of work; it is then up to them to make sure that the job is done. If it is not, they will be penalised or sacked. We may continue that debate in the future.
  I shall refer later to the Select Committee's comments about morale and other matters. If those involved are to justify some of their charging structures, for example, they need to offer a speedier and more efficient service in many areas. I am sure that that can be achieved through a multitude of different solutions.
  It is widely accepted that a joined-up, coherent and effective environment regulator is a necessary and desirable goal. That is not at issue. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit and our work has focused similarly on the genuineness of the greening of Government across all Departments, and on encouraging an integrated environmental appraisal in practice, not just in pledges and ministerial soundbites.
  Three and a half years on, it is right that the House should have the opportunity, through the Select Committee report, to assess whether sufficient progress has been achieved towards the aspirations and goals set for this not inconsiderable agency, which employs about 10,000 people and has a budget of £623 million, and whether it is discharging its functions as defined in the Environment Act 1995.
  The Act described the main purpose of the agency as
  so to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make the contribution—
  that Ministers consider appropriate—
  towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development.
  I do not take issue with that. However, in that context, it is pertinent to assess the changes that might have occurred in what Ministers deem to be environmentally appropriate.
  588
  The report confirms the perception that the Environment Agency has not lived up to those expectations—certainly not to those that say that it should come together as a coherent and integrated one-stop shop. That criticism is fair, although we appreciate that much has been achieved in some areas; of course, too little has been achieved in others.
  The agency has failed to assert its credentials—its raison d'être—in the public consciousness. The public does not know why it exists—with the overriding exception, perhaps, of its appearance in a crisis management role during recent and previous floods, responding to events rather than pre-empting them. As one witness to the Committee states:
  practical implementation of the theory is confused and confusing for those whom the Agency is supposed to assist.
  The report notes that
  the Agency is currently "punching below its weight".
  A CBI survey concluded that that there was a
  lack of functional integration… They have to pay more attention to making sure that the individual bits of the Agency work together, work cohesively.
  The Wildlife Trusts commented:
  there is a lack of cross-functional working in the Agency and this is hindering delivery of its core objectives.
  The Select Committee itself concluded that the agency
  is responsible for implementing a large number of different pieces of legislation, many of which are themselves not conducive to integrated implementation.
  At that point, I did a double-take, because the report could have been describing the whole Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I shall be interested in the Committee's comments in its next annual report on DETR' s effectiveness in bringing together such wide and disparate roles.
  The Committee's report accused the agency of
  following the debate, not leading it.
  Another witness said:
  At the moment I think we see the Agency very much looking towards the Government, trying constantly to please the Government and failing often, but not quite having the confidence in itself to stand up and say, "We think this is the right thing to do for sustainable development."
  That latter point is all the more worrying, given recent appointments at the head of the agency. Sir John Harman, a former Labour leader of a metropolitan borough and the author of the environment pledges in Labour's election manifesto, and Baroness Young, who takes the Labour Whip in another place, are immensely talented individuals with not impertinent credentials for their jobs.
  However, there is a potentially worrying hint of cronyism—hardly allayed by the evidence of the Minister for the Environment to the Select Committee. He gave the thinly veiled caution:
  I would not expect the Chairman of the Agency to make an outright attack on the Government.
  Why not? If the agency is to be respected as a centre of excellence in environmental regulation, promoting sustainable development, with public funds of £623 million at its disposal and 10,000 public servants working for it—enabling it to research the environmental cause and effect of public policy or industrial practice—surely it should be given free rein to speak its mind if the evidence supports such a stance.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend had left the Chamber when I pointed out that the Government's response to the report

  589
  noted that if there were a disagreement between the agency and the Government, they would expect that to be discussed before the agency went public. We are all aware of the extent to which Governments can twist arms.
  Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; he is right.
  I do not see what the problem is. If we are to respect the agency for the objectives that we set for it, our aim should not be to muzzle it. Whatever twist of language the Government use, what they have been talking about constitutes muzzling.
  The Select Committee on Environmental Audit, on which I serve, has certainly not shied away from publishing damning reports, even with its in-built Labour majority, in its role of scrutinising Government policy across Departments. That has proved to be one of its strengths, and long may it continue.
  I shall deal with some of the specific criticisms in the report. It refers to allowing the agency to regulate industries in a more flexible way on a sector or cross-sector basis, or companies on a company-wide basis. That has merits because one-size-fits-all regulation is often not appropriate, especially if it does not acknowledge existing best practice in certain areas. It has merits especially as—however much we might object—the Chancellor of Exchequer is considering exemptions and agreements for reductions, on an industry-by-industry basis, when he eventually applies the energy tax if the agreements are reached by the next financial year. Such proposals would fit that type of regulation.
  The second criticism is about what I call the "not me guy" mentality, to which the report refers. The report queries the responsibilities of different sections of the agency. There is precious little co-operation between relevant departments, and matters are pushed around from one department to the other. The Committee comments that perhaps the agency should create a team of specialists in particular fields, who are easily identifiable by their customer base. That is a strong recommendation.
  There is cross-cutting across local authority boundaries. A great deal of waste and a lack of accessibility is caused by dealing with so many different departments, all with a degree of overlap. The agency is not so much a one-stop shop as a multi-shop department store spread across many sites.
  Another point, which is not made in any great detail in the report, is that £108 million—almost a fifth—of the Environment Agency's budget, which is now up to £623 million, is spent on administration and a further £13.5 million on pensions, compared with the £156 million that is spent on capital expenditure and investment. That suggests that we are not getting value for money, given the cost of administration compared with that of delivering serious results, the capital spend and the investment in environmental control. Perhaps the Committee will return to that point, because it was not dealt with in much detail.
  Another criticism involves the management, staff and charging structures. Having worked with the Environment Agency, the south-east area office of which is based at Worthing on the edge my constituency, I agree that it has a fully committed staff. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the people with whom I have dealt at the agency have executed their functions, especially during the recent
  590
  flooding problems, which we have experienced so badly in my part of the world. However, low morale is certainly an issue, and high staff turnover can only decrease the agency's effectiveness.
  Perhaps the familiar idea of the poacher and the gamekeeper applies. Much more attractive financial rewards are available in the private sector, which is trying to recruit people to avoid being hit by the regulators. A good analogy is the financial services world, which I know well, where, because of the growth in regulation—some would say over-regulation—there is a shortage of qualified staff. People can virtually name their own price, as individual private firms bid for them so strongly, leaving many vacancies in the official regulator. When trained, its staff tend to leave and enter private practice. That problem needs to be addressed.
  We need to look at the management structures—not least at this matrix management business—but not at the expense of simply jacking up the charges for the regulated customers, particularly as the standard and speed of service often leaves a lot to be desired, as the report states. We need to be able to offer value for money. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, there is a simple formula by which the Environment Agency's charges cover its costs. If its costs go up, so do the charges. That is no incentive in terms of the charges that it can levy, which people have to pay.
  I like the idea of incentive charging. Again, we have lessons to learn from the world of financial services, in which firms that have earned a good reputation for compliance and customer service are inspected less regularly, although they will still suffer the full rigours of the disciplinary process if they commit a misdemeanour.
  That fits in well with the vision of the agency's new chairman, whose consultation document says that the agency will rightly be assessed by the lack of need to take enforcement action, not simply according to the frequency with which inspections take place. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal made that point, which I strongly support.
  I am slightly unclear about the report's intentions regarding penalties for offenders. At one point, it refers to the naming of offenders as a "hall of fame" exercise and to a "serious lack of judgment" and "seeking cheap publicity", but then it says that the Committee is very much in favour of the concept of naming and shaming. There seems to be a slight contradiction.
  Mr. Bennett: If we are going to name and shame, we have to get it right, so that the shame sticks and it is not possible for someone to shuffle it off by saying that the statistics were not right or we made this or that mistake. If it is to be done, it has to be done well. We wanted to ensure that it was done right the first time.
  Mr. Loughton: I completely agree with that sentiment. The report seemed somewhat ambiguous, but if that is the intention, I would welcome any practical proposals on how we can make that happen.
  Many of us are frustrated about the inadequate level of fines that have been meted out up to now. It is patently absurd that a company can save hundreds of thousands of pounds by short circuiting proper waste disposal, taking a

  591
  calculated decision that it will at worst face a fine of about £20,000, if it gets caught, the chances of which are not high in any case.
  The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the possibility of referring cases to the Crown court, where fines can be greater, is certainly worthy of further consideration. If we are serious about environmental regulation, we must have serious financial penalties available for serious misdemeanours, balanced with a lighter regulatory hand on the majority of institutions that, to coin a phrase, do their bit. We must also make it as straightforward and as affordable as possible to comply with the regulations in the first place.
  People from my local Environment Agency office have been conducting "stinging" operations. They engaged six different firms to dispose of six different piles of rubbish, which had been marked. I was appalled to learn that only one of the firms disposed of the rubbish in a legal and environmentally acceptable way. The other five fly-tipped it, dumped it elsewhere or inappropriately put it with other rubbish. Prosecutions are now being pursued against those firms, and quite rightly so. They should have the book thrown at them.
  One of the worst infringements occurring at present is dumping and fly tipping, which has certainly increased since the introduction of the landfill tax, although I am fully in agreement with that tax and believe that we must pursue serious reprisals against those who try to get round it. Our environmental police may not wear uniforms, but their effectiveness as an environmental law enforcement body can only be enhanced by their being clearly identifiable as a determined and effective deterrent, not afraid to pursue offenders. With the help of the courts, we hope that they will be able to get a result.
  I welcome the report's praise for the agency's improved transparency and accessibility: its open board meetings; the fact that it was the first Government agency to hold an annual general meeting for the public; the availability of information on its website; and especially the availability of flood mapping through that site in the near future, which can only be a good thing. I am concerned, however, about the report's recommendation:
  It is important that the Agency recognise that Regional Development Agencies are here to stay.
  Given the Conservative party's stance on regional development agencies, the Chairman of the Committee may not be surprised by my view. When the Deputy Prime Minister was quizzed by the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, he admitted that an RDA's top priority is the economic generation of its area and that environmental sustainability came very low down the pecking order—it seemed to be raised as an afterthought in Committee. Regional boundaries are perhaps even less a respecter of nature's landscape in this country than are local authority boundaries.
  The main issue, which has been mentioned by just about every hon. Member who has spoken today, is flooding. I reiterate the praise given to Environment Agency staff, who worked like Trojans during the recent crisis. They worked particularly hard in Sussex, my part of the world, where Peter Midgely—the head of the local agency which is based in Worthing—has appeared in just about every news bulletin about the local floods. He looks
  592
  increasingly stressed, tired and overwhelmed, but he and his staff have coped incredibly well. I am sure that he will reintroduce himself to his family when the flood waters have gone down. His area includes Lewes, Uckfield, Robertsbridge, Selsey and Chichester, all of which were particularly hard hit. I know that the Minister, who visited many of those sites—
  Mr. Morley: All of them.
  Mr. Loughton: Yes, the Minister visited all of them, as I did. We know only too well how hard those places were hit. The hard work of the agency, and its close co-operation with emergency services and West Sussex county council saved the historic heart of Chichester from going under water. They laid 13 miles of pipes to divert water away from the city centre and that, touch wood—or touch Dispatch Box—seems to have worked thus far.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend mentioned West Sussex county council. In those areas that were subject to serious floods—Maidstone borough council, for example—local authority staff in many ways matched the Environment Agency staff in their devotion to duty and the assiduity with which they carried people about and provided services.
  Mr. Loughton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I fear that this part of my speech may become a Thomas Cook's tour of various local authorities and agency staff, all of whom deserve our praise. In my constituency, Shoreham is very prone to flooding and the whole town was within inches of going under. It was saved only by the coastal defence work that the agency carried out, which has worked up to now, although not quite as much has been done as we should like.
  I introduce one point of criticism—the Government's folly in slashing West Sussex county council's emergency budget. The Home Office cut our emergency planning budget by 31 per cent. It was only because the county council decided that the budget simply could not be reduced below current levels without endangering West Sussex residents that it—or council tax payers—picked up the tab for the difference. We retained spending at previous levels.
  Mr. Morley: I want to respond to that point, in case I do not deal with it in my reply. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Office budget was originally designed for civil defence purposes during the cold war. Given that we are no longer under the threat of nuclear war, it is not unreasonable to review the budget. Of course, we now face other dangers, such as the floods, which seem to have occurred much more regularly. My colleagues in the Home Office are giving thought to the budget's future role.
  Mr. Loughton: I am relieved to hear that and I hope the Minister will impose his thoughts on the Home Office because, in the words of the leader of West Sussex county council,
  If we had not put this additional money into emergency planning—
  it was taken away by the Home Office—
  the current situation would have been almost hopeless in coping with the flooding.

  593
  The money was important. The amount might have been relatively small, but it was large in percentage terms, and that had a big impact.
  The big question is whether more preventive work could have been done and where blame can—if at all—be constructively apportioned for recent flooding disasters. I think hon. Members received a letter last week from Sir John Harman at the Environment Agency in which he rather nonchalantly stated that
  all the lessons learned from previous events have been implemented.
  That is worrying because if that is as good as it gets then places such as Lewes, York and Yalding face bleak futures.
  We cannot accept that the Environment Agency has gone far enough. It is possible that it has not been allowed to go far enough, or has not been given the resources to go far enough, to respond to the comprehensive criticisms made in the excellent independent review team report by Peter Bye and Dr. Michael Homer after the 1998 flooding in the midlands. The report said that such floods
  had not been experienced in living memory in many places—
  until recently, of course. It also revealed
  Instances of unsatisfactory planning, inadequate warnings for the public, incomplete defences, and poor co-ordination with emergency services, that fell short of the Agency's own demanding performance standards.
  The Minister is well aware of that report. Indeed, he commissioned and responded to it a couple of years ago.
  There is evidence that various improvements have come on stream and are working. The new warning system, which I helped the Environment Agency to launch in Worthing in the summer, is in place and has worked exceedingly well. Most people who watch news reports now understand what the flood warnings mean. They do not need to have water on their doorstep to appreciate them. That is a vast improvement, as is the accessibility of mapping.
  The problem is that the agency is perceived as having wider-ranging responsibilities than it performs or is likely to be resourced to undertake, and I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that these criticisms are justified. There are still problems of split responsibility with other bodies, which was especially true of the sewerage authorities after the sewerage agreement between water companies and local authorities in which the demarcation of their roles and responsibilities vis-àvis the Environment Agency was not made clear.
  Is there a consistent approach across the country based on best practice and including greater liaison between neighbouring local authority areas on developing flood threats close to common boundaries? Have the mechanics for the principle of a series of escalating safeguards, which were built into the flood monitoring procedures, been put in place, as recommended in the independent report? Has the Environment Agency addressed the problem revealed by the 1998 floods when insufficient rainfall information masked the severity of the event and flow measuring stations, not designed for flood monitoring, were literally overwhelmed?
  In light of recent events, has the agency reassessed the annual probability of the Easter 1998 floods, which was thought at the time to be as low as 0.7 to 1 per cent.—a return period of between 100 and 150 years? Is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds justified in its
  594
  criticisms that the agency's approach to flood defence needs to be much more integrated with its other responsibilities such as managing water supplies and that regional flood defence committees had been a barrier to integrated thinking? All those questions still arise. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed now, or later, whether they have been fully taken on board.
  A key consideration—perhaps most relevant to comments made today—remains the failure to integrate the flood defence requirements with the planning system. That is presumably why the Minister for Housing and Planning was this week summoned, together with the Environment Agency, before the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. News that the new planning guidance on building in flood risk areas is to be postponed is worrying. Undoubtedly, building on flood plains contributed to recent floods. Massive further house building on the scale that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to impose on the south-east in particular can only massively increase vulnerability.
  How many homes have been built in dangerous areas? How many more will have to be built oil flood plains if the Government insist on sticking to their targets? How much extra will have to be spent on providing defences against flooding if we continue building houses in the wrong places?
  Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the term "postponed" is a little misused in this context, in that the original hope was that the regulations would be out in December, but the Minister for Housing and Planning is now telling us that they will be published in mid-January? Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that anyone making a planning decision must take into account not only planning policy guidance but ministerial statements? The statement that the Minister made at the start of the Select Committee hearing was very useful and should be taken into account by anyone arriving at a planning decision.
  Mr. Loughton: I will come to the issue of ministerial statements because, if anything, they add to the confusion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire mentioned that between 950,000 and 1.2 million homes are in risk areas—particularly in London, which, proportionately, has the largest number, and in the south-east, where there has been most development. An area the size of Greater London has been developed since the war in the south-east of England. That amount of green land has been lost to development—double the average of any other region of the United Kingdom. That, of course, has serious implications for people gaining insurance for their properties, and potential implications for the value of those properties.
  Yesterday, to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we had conflicting news. Following his walk along the polders in Holland, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that he was considering powers to veto developments on flood plains. That is fine. Perceptively, he proclaimed, according to the Financial Times:
  The areas that flood will be flood plains.
  At the same time, yesterday's papers carried stories that next week's long-awaited rural White Paper will include plans to remove the right of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to veto building on prime farmland,

  595
  opening the way for extensive development on flood plains. That is crazy. Has he learned the lesson of recent flooding, or not? Is the role of the Environment Agency to be strengthened or overridden by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State?
  The Environment Agency, in its response to the independent report, stated unequivocally that
  in seeking to minimise the potential damage caused by flooding, we will continue to defend vigorously our advice to planning authorities to prevent inappropriate development adding to the problem of flooding.
  That is quite right; I agree.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key word is "inappropriate"? In describing the flood plain to the Select Committee, the Minister gave us a map of the Thames, and on that the House of Commons is shown to be on the flood plain. The House of Commons is not necessarily in danger of flooding unless we take away the Thames barrier. So, some places on the flood plain are protected. As long as that protection remains, there is no risk to buildings on it.
  Mr. Loughton: I do not disagree with some of the hon. Gentleman's points, but we are not talking about every inch of every flood plain. The word "inappropriate" is right in that context. Patently, the policy has not worked up to now. The advice that the Environment Agency has given has in many cases not been heeded, or, if it has been heeded, it has simply not worked.
  I was brought up and went to school in Lewes, so I know it well, but when I visited the town, some parts of it that I saw under water were unrecognisable. I saw some new social housing, built, in the past couple of years, within feet of the River Ouse on a level that is lower than the top of the bank of the Ouse, which is well known for flooding. The houses have little driveways for parking cars that slope down toward the houses from the central road running through the estate, which acts as a neat conduit to bring flood waters straight down into the front rooms of those houses.
  Those houses have been built in the past few years, with or without the advice of the Environment Agency ignored or not by the local authority and obviously not overridden on appeal or by the Secretary of State. Can the Minister honestly say that he is happy with the post-1998 improvements? Why has so much Environment Agency advice to planning authorities been ignored? Does it come down to lack of resources, lack of proper management, or lack of support from the Government? Is the agency's role in advising on planning for developments on flood plains to be strengthened, or taken away altogether? Will Environment Agency advice be given far greater weight by the planning inspectorate in appeals? Those are legitimate questions arising from the Select Committee report and from the flooding that has affected so much of our country in recent weeks.
  The report has made a useful contribution to the way in which we will police our environment in future. It highlights how the Environment Agency must be given an important role in that effort and the Government must support it if the agency is to be taken seriously. I look
  596
  forward to hearing a constructive response from the Minister and an assurance that the many criticisms that have been levelled will be addressed urgently. I hope that if legislation is required to improve matters, he will press forcefully for it. The ball is in the Government's court. I now ask the Minister to respond——[Interruption.]—although it appears that we might have an additional response from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
  1.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I welcome the opportunity to debate the report and I am pleased to be here in my capacity as Minister with responsibility for flooding and coastal defence. My presence here demonstrates something that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will be pleased to see in action: that we as a Government work together; our Departments co-ordinate with each other. The fact that I can speak on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on some issues and Ministers at that Department can speak on some issues relating to agriculture demonstrates that we are developing a more joined-up, integrated approach to environmental matters.
  I shall try to go through the points made in the debate, especially those made by my hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, which has done an excellent job. I have always been a supporter of Select Committees and I served on one—the Select Committee on Agriculture—after I was first elected in 1987. Select Committees do influence Governments. Much of the report being debated today is good and well argued and it will influence the Government's course of action in future.
  I believe that the Environment Agency is developing a clear identity and role. That takes time. The Environment Agency brought together a wide range of different organisations-85 in all—and to weld them together in a single form is quite a job, but I believe that the agency is succeeding. The agency has a new chairman, Sir John Harman and will have a new chief executive, Baroness Young of Old Scone. I was slightly disappointed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), who levelled mild criticism at those appointments on the grounds of the Labour party connections of the people appointed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those two are highly independent individuals. In the Government's dealings with Baroness Young in her former role as chairman of English Nature, we learned that she pulled no punches when defending the interests of the body she represented and furthering the interests of nature conservation. I am sure that that will be a formidable team, who will make sure that the Environment Agency fulfils its role as a Government adviser and carries out its obligations in relation to the environment, waste management and the supervision of emissions.
  On waste and supervision, I recognise my hon. Friend's point about risk assessment. That is becoming a more common aspect of regulation. I also appreciated my hon. Friend's comments about tyres and the related problems. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke at length about tyres. I have some sympathy with those views, as I have in my constituency a situation similar to that outlined by the right hon. Gentleman.

  597

  Someone took over a disused airfield and began to store car tyres there, in breach of planning permission. The local council, the former Glanford borough council, gave retrospective planning permission, which I thought was not a great idea, but by then there was a huge mound of tyres and the situation was getting out of control. The company concerned made all sorts of promises and asked for all sorts of grants to deal with the problem. In the end, it declared itself bankrupt and cleared off, leaving a gigantic mountain of tyres on the airfield, which threatened adjacent villages.
  Hon. Members may be interested to know that many of the car tyres from that site have been used by the local council. One of the uses for them is to line landfill sites. I understand that that is also helpful in the collection of methane gas which, in the case of my local authority, is collected and burned in a power station to produce electricity. That seems an environmentally friendly method of dealing with it. Bus and lorry tyres are much more difficult to dispose of, and I know that the agency is working towards a strategy for dealing with tyres, which should be in place by 2002.
  I understand the point about naming and shaming. My hon. Friend explained the Committee's thinking, and I believe that there is a role for naming and shaming but, as he rightly said, it must be based on sound criteria. I agree with him about the level of fines. There has been some disappointment about the level of fines for some major pollution incidents, not least the tanker incident that took place off south Wales.
  Although that is a matter for the courts, which are independent, it has been made clear to them that we expect environmental pollution offences to be dealt with strictly and with appropriate fines. Many cases involve multinational companies, which can afford to pay fines. The fine must be substantial if it is to be effective. I know that the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are examining the matter of company regulation and the associated costs.
  With regard to waste and local authority links, the agency is developing a strategy for waste management and preparing for the implementation of the landfill directive. By 2002, 90 per cent. of sites will be classified, so progress is being made.
  Fly tipping is a major problem for any urban or fringe area. Some of my local farmers and landowners have great difficulty with that. There is no definitive evidence that fly tipping is linked with the landfill tax but, no matter what the reason for it, the Environment Agency has an important role in dealing with it, working with local authorities.
  I accept the point about the end-use directive and the way that it will apply to the recycling of cars. The House may be interested in research that MAFF is doing to promote industrial crops. Some fibre crops can be used to make dashboards and interior panels for cars, so in future, in addition to recycling the metal, we may be able to compost other car components. That would certainly be a green way of dealing with them.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) mentioned planning, which is a key issue. Over the years, bad decisions have been made about flood plains. The Environment Agency has produced flood risk maps, which are a great advantage. They were one of the high
  598
  level targets that were set after the Bye report. I understand that the flood risk maps that have already been circulated to local authorities will be available on the internet in December. People can thus access them on the internet, identify their exact area and the way in which the flood risk maps apply.
  Planning policy guidance 25 will be reviewed in the light of the recent floods and the appearance of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning before the Select Committee. Some of the comments that were made at that meeting will influence the method of introducing the proposal. The guidance will be sharpened and take note of the recent floods. As my hon. Friend said, we intend to introduce it in January. It will therefore not be greatly delayed, but it is important that it takes the points that I mentioned into account.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a point on new development. I caution the Opposition not to get too excited about future development. Of course we acknowledge that it is important. However, it would be a mistake to adopt a predict and provide approach and say, "You can't at any time, under any circumstances, have any sort of development on a flood plain." Such an approach is unnecessary; each application should be judged on merit, and planning policy guidance 25 recommends that. Some developments should be refused because they are inappropriate or should not happen in a specific area; others may be satisfactory. Some may require flood mitigation measures. In those cases, the developers may have to pay for them. That is not unreasonable.
  Let me deal with the policy of best and most versatile land, which will be addressed in the rural White Paper. I have already read some press reports about it. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food deals with that policy, but it has never been effective. MAFF has requested a public inquiry under its intervention powers only once; that has happened since I have been Parliamentary Secretary. Our objections on grounds of best and most versatile land did not make any difference; the policy does not work. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about retaining it. However, that could have the opposite effect to that desired by the hon. Gentleman.
  Under current regulations, MAFF can intervene on grade 1 and 2 land if it is up for development. We can hold up the process and request a public inquiry. That could mean that development is directed towards lower-grade agricultural land, which is less appropriate for the purpose. Development on higher-grade agricultural land, which may be better for the purpose, could be delayed. Again, we return to the point about treating issues on their individual merit. Changing the regulations on best and most versatile land will not mean opening up agricultural or greenbelt land to some new form of development.
  Mr. Loughton: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary cannot dispute that, if the regulations are relaxed, the only possible result is that more land is available for development in the countryside.
  Mr. Morley: Absolutely not. I stress that development remains covered by normal planning conditions. Although we shall ask planning committees to take agricultural

  599
  grading into account, decisions about whether land will be developed, whatever its grade, will not mean that more land is available for development. Individual cases will go through normal procedures when they are considered by the planning authority, within the guidelines that planning policy guidance provides. It is a sensible approach. Some lower-grade agricultural land can, in some circumstances, have higher biodiversity and environmental benefits than some better-quality land which has been intensively farmed and has low environmental benefits. In some instances, developments on better-quality, intensively fanned land is less damaging than developments on poor-quality land.
  Mr. Loughton: I hope that that is the result of what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the fact that he has unofficially made a statement—it seems that it will be an official statement—will have an impact on planning authorities, which can only surmise that more development is acceptable. Opening up land for development sends out a signal that more development is more acceptable now than it was previously.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand planning law. There will not be the slightest difference. The planning procedures will continue to apply. There have already been some slight changes to the regulation. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the White Paper, which will set out the full details. The current situation has not made the slightest difference to planning applications. There is logic in planning applications being based on individual issues, and there has been no change in that regard. Extra land is not coming on to the market. Much will depend on structure plans and planning authorities, as it does now. Any changes in procedures will not make extra farm land or greenbelt land available for development. I put that on the record because I am sure that there will be further discussion of these matters.
  Abstraction licences are a big issue, and agriculture is involved. I have discussed it with many organisations. Ironically, although we have had the wettest autumn since records began, generally speaking there have been problems with long-term water management, which is another big issue. We must think about abstraction in terms of domestic users, industrial users and agricultural users. In due course a draft water Bill will be brought forward. The Environment Agency will be drawing up catchment area management plans by April 2001. We want to make some progress.
  I shall talk about floods in some detail. There are costs associated with flood defence and flood management. Another factor, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) touched upon, is changes in farming methods over the years. The Ministry has had a role in that it has provided grants for draining. It has encouraged the move away from grazing to a range of arable crops, and that has had an impact.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish asked about the environmental impact assessment from MAFF, which has been delayed since 1985. To be honest, it has been sat on for many reasons. However, I am glad to say that the assessment, in relation to ploughing up
  600
  natural and semi-natural grassland, is going ahead with the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister. The draft proposals will come out in the near future.
  Other issues are increased run-off and building regulations. We need to think more about such things as water recycling in terms of building regulations and the impact of landscaping and balancing ponds. MAFF takes these issues seriously through its green buildings initiative, as part of the process of greening government with which the Green Ministers deal, and I am the MAFF Green Minister. We do so in relation to our own estates. The Central Science Laboratory, at York, which is a very new building, has a landscaped central pond that not only has enhanced the area, but is part of the water run-off catchment system, preventing that water from going into drains and ditches and adding to some of the problems that we have seen recently.
  There have also been questions on today's announcement on buyer's packs for new house buyers. The proposal is, however, more of a legal issue and part of the Government's proposals to try to speed up house transactions. The buyer's pack would contain all the relevant legal documentation, which could be transferred quite quickly.
  The packs are being trialled in one area before being used more widely, and could contain information such as whether a house is in a flood risk area. It has been suggested that energy ratings should be included in the packs, and I am sure that that could be considered. However, difficult issues such as how, and by whom, energy ratings are assessed would have to be addressed. Nevertheless, including energy ratings is not a bad idea, and it is certainly worth thinking about. The Environment Agency and the Law Society are in consultation on environmental information, including flood risk, that could be included in the packs.
  Hon. Members have also raised the issue of insurance. I have recently had meetings, as have Treasury Ministers, with the Association of British Insurers, and I was asked whether the Government would share risk for properties in flood risk areas. However, we do not want to remove responsibility from insurance companies, which operate as a business and know and ascertain risk. Nevertheless, the Government share risk with insurance companies in that we pay for flood defence and provide great sums for flood and coastal defence, thereby reducing risk and helping insurance companies to calculate premiums and to decide on which risks to take.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that there are real problems with run-off from fields. A consequence of changes in agriculture, such as the switch to autumn sowing and much better field drainage, is that water can run off fields much more quickly. However, although those changes are an issue in flooding and run-off and need to be considered in investigating particular problems, they are not the only issue. We should not try to blame one particular group.
  The Ministry of Agriculture produces soil codes for the agricultural industry that address issues such as run-off and the problems associated with mud slides, and we expect farmers to follow that guidance.
  Other issues for the Environment Agency include the design of new houses. Additionally, houses that are subject to frequent flooding can be re-designed to be fairly resistant to flooding. This week, I was in Shrewsbury and

  601
  spoke to a resident whose home had been flooded on various occasions. It had been flooded in the recent floods, but the way in which the floors had been relaid, the walls re-plastered and—as mentioned today—the sockets moved up the wall made it look quite undamaged. Although she was drying out the room with a de-humidifier, she was confident that, once that was completed, there would be minimal damage to the room.
  Such re-design, combined with better flood warning systems, can help many people whose homes are subject to frequent flooding. However, I am not pretending that re-design is the answer for everyone affected by flooding. Unlike most people, the woman to whom I spoke in Shrewsbury had an old house in a vulnerable area that had been flooded frequently.
  I join hon. Members who have given great praise to the way in which the Environment Agency reacted to the recent floods. It is fair to say that many agency staff worked around the clock and showed great dedication. Staff from unaffected regions have been moved in to bolster staff in the affected regions. I have been round many of the control centres and talked to Environment Agency staff. Environment Agency staff—with all the other agencies and the local authorities that have all played an excellent role in dealing with the floods—deserve great credit for all that they have done. I am proud to be associated with the Environment Agency in my role as sponsoring Minister for the agency's flood-related operations. It has done a great job.
  As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham quite rightly stated, part of that followed on from the Bye report. The Northampton floods illustrated a range of weaknesses and the Bye report was commissioned to address them. Peter Bye made a series of sensible recommendations which the Government are implementing. One was to upgrade the national flood warning system and in the past two years we have spent a lot of money on that. The success of that programme was demonstrated in the recent floods, where, by and large, warnings were given in plenty of time. The warning systems worked well and clearly there had been a great improvement.
  The flood awareness programme was established in response to another recommendation and over the next 10 years we plan to spend £100 million on it. The Environment Agency has been putting leaflets through people's doors in flood risk areas, drawing attention to the fact that the area is at risk and advising on what response to take, and what the warning symbols meant. That was also very helpful. Following the Bye report, we also set new targets for emergency response exercises. Exercises were carried out in some areas during the summer and that also paid off during the recent floods.
  We should put the issue into perspective. In the recent floods, 1.8 million homes were at risk and some 6,500 properties were flooded. I am not being complacent about that and it is not much consolation to the unfortunate people whose properties were flooded, but on the scale of risk and the number of properties at risk, the flood defences worked. We should not forget that many people were protected by the investment that had been made in flood defences over many years. I also pay tribute to my Ministry's flood and coastal division which made a technical assessment of the defences and worked very hard.
  602
  The Government have provided an extra £51 million for flood defences, on top of the rising spend. This year, we are spending about £400 million from all sources on flood and coast defence. Extra funds are being provided for catchment studies and on upgrading weather radar, to meet the point that was made about more accurate forecasting of rainfall. We have also increased the grant for river flood defences schemes by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I thank the Minister for giving way and I apologise for having had to miss much of the debate as I was unavoidably detained elsewhere. I strongly agree with what he said about the superb work that the Environment Agency has put into defending many cities, including Chichester, in recent weeks. He also mentioned the extra investment that is being made available. Can he give any assurances that the review of the allocation of long-term funding will speed up the process whereby the project can be put under way? We knew about the problem in Chichester as long ago as 1994, when Chichester flooded. However, the scheme has still not been implemented. Can the Minister give us any assurance and encouragement?
  Mr. Morley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman encouragement. As he is probably aware, the 20 per cent. extra funding that we have announced will of course apply to Chichester, which has been given priority funding. Chichester would have received 45 per cent. capital funding from the Government and it will now receive 65 per cent. That will enable the scheme to be accelerated and it will certainly help the regional flood defence committee.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only delay to the scheme in Chichester involves not funding but an objection to the compulsory purchase order, so it is a procedural delay. Once that delay is resolved, which I am sure that it will be, there is nothing to stop the scheme going ahead. It has planning permission and funding is available and I am sure that it will be a great relief to the people of Chichester.
  When I visited Chichester with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was most impressed by what the local council and the fire brigade were doing to pump water around the town centre to make sure that it was protected from flooding. Those temporary arrangements have worked well so far and I hope that they will continue to work through this winter until the scheme is put in place.
  In relation to other points made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the Environment Agency is not a campaigning organisation, something that was recognised by the Select Committee. However, it should give a clear lead on environmental issues, and I am quite sure that it will do that. Under the new chairman, the agency is developing clear principles with regard to what it should be concentrating on and doing, and that will be a big advantage. The staff are working together; the agency's turnover is dropping, which is a good sign. Sustainability is a key issue for all departments, as I have mentioned.
  The Environment Agency will be going through its five-year cycle of financial management and policy review, and the terms of reference will be announced shortly. That will provide an opportunity to address some of the points made by right hon. and hon. Members.

  603
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal again gave his support for the Environment Agency. He mentioned matrix management. As I understand it, matrix management ensures that there is a clear line of management and one point of contact. So when people use the services of the Environment Agency, they have one point of contact rather than going through lots of different departments and being passed from pillar to post—something that is not unknown in Ministries or agencies. I understand the concept behind that, and I think that it is right.
  Transparency of cost was mentioned in relation to the waste packaging regulations, and a case was made for incentive charges. They should be fair and transparent, and any such proposals should have to deliver clear overall benefit. That is the Government's view. We do not rule out the idea of ring-fencing funds. Of course, we have to weigh up the bureaucracy involved in relation to the benefits provided.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown mentioned the problems that he has with sewage outfall, and I will look at that carefully. I know that, in some cases, if it is felt appropriate, ultraviolet light treatment can be used to deal with bacteria.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was absolutely right that there is a role for incineration. Issues such as air quality, emissions control and temperature are for the Environment Agency. Consents must be obtained for any kind of incineration. The Environment Agency can set those standards. With modern designs such as fluidised beds, there is better incineration: waste can be burnt at higher temperatures.
  Of course, incineration is covered by the environment protection directives. Whether we like it or not, we need a whole range of options including more recycling and the need to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. However, the need for some incineration will never be completely removed. In some cases, incineration may be the most appropriate method, so we need proper controls to protect the environment and adjacent residents. There are procedures for that. So we should not say that incineration should never be considered at any time for any thing. However, incinerators have to go somewhere, and I appreciate that, wherever they go, there will be some local resistance. That is an appropriate issue for local Members of Parliament to take up.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) spoke about plastics in agriculture. There are guidelines for dealing with plastics; I know that the Environment Agency takes an interest in the appropriate use of plastics, as do we at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton raised some detailed questions about the Welbeck site in his constituency. I understand that, living, as I do, adjacent to a landfill site. No one can accuse me of being a NIMBY. It is a well-run landfill site. I was pleased to be invited to open the reverse osmosis digester—it was an important part of my role as the local Member of Parliament. The site also collects the methane and burns it in power stations. I opened that facility as well, and was pleased to see it introduced.
  604
  My hon. Friend also spoke about the condemned meat that was put into the site and the fact that there appears to have been a division of responsibility between the local authority and the Environment Agency. It is not right that there was an 18-month wait for an answer. I will follow the matter up and make sure that my hon. Friend gets a reply about the current situation.
  A number of hon Members mentioned climate change. I was pleased to see the Deputy Prime Minister taking such a robust line on that at the conference in The Hague on behalf of our country. We can be proud about what we have done to meet to meet our targets on reducing CO2 We should be proud that we have a better record than just about any industrialised nation, even though costs and tough decisions are associated with that. There is no doubt that other industrialised countries must do more and I very much hope that an agreement is reached at The Hague. The United States, which has 5 per cent. of the world's population, is the biggest industrial country and produces 25 per cent. of the world's greenhouse gases. It must recognise, as we all do, that it has an international responsibility. I very much hope that an agreement is reached.
  The House may wish to hear some statistics that struck me as interesting. Average temperatures have warmed by 0.6 deg C in the last 100 years. That may not sound much, but it is significant. In the UK, 1999 was the joint warmest year on record and four out of five of the hottest years ever recorded in a 330-year period have occurred in the past 10 years. There is no doubt that the climate has changed and, although there are arguments about whether weather patterns are linked to global warming, the fact that global warming is taking place is not disputed. We need to understand more about how the link between climate and global warming works. The Government are committing £11 million a year to studying climate change and global warming. Most of that work is being done by the UK climate impacts programme at the Hadley Centre. It aim is to see whether predictions on tides and extreme weather patterns have altered, as that is important for the way in which we deal with these issues.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is some of that research looking at whether reducing CO2 emissions is the correct response to global warming? Are there other approaches, for example increased spending? It may be more economically efficient overall for the world to spend more funds on better sea defence.
  Mr. Morley: Some of that money is being used for weather predictions. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must consider the best use of that funding. We are already building rising sea levels into our assessment of coastal defence. Our long-term projections take that into account and we shall also consider it and cost implications when defences come up for renew and repair.
  This September was one of the wettest since records began. Last October was the second wettest October since records began in 1766, and 29 October was the wettest October day since daily records began in 1931. The beginning of November has been unusually wet, with three-quarters of the expected monthly total falling in the first seven days. I am sure that hon. Members remember that bonfire night was a bit damp, and 5 November was the second wettest November day since daily records began in 1931.

  605
  The Select Committee report is thoroughly well presented, as I would expect, given the commitment of its members and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is its Chairman. It makes a series of important recommendations on how the Environment Agency operates, which the Government are taking seriously. I hope that I have answered some of the points that it raises but, if others remain, I should be only too pleased to answer them later in more detail. This is an issue for all Departments, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that we shall work hard to ensure that his recommendations are put into effect.
  1.49 pm
  Mr. Bennett: First, I thank all the Members who have participated in our debate, and I thank the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues for their useful responses. I shall also say a few words about what the Select Committee and the Environment Agency ought to be doing as a result of our debate. I have always seen the Select Committee process as on-going. One does not simply take evidence, produce a report and that is the end of the matter. Certainly, this area is one in which we need to continue to work. The Environment Agency needs to take careful note of what has been said in the debate. Hon. Members seem to wish the agency well, but feel that it could do a little better in some respects.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised the question of packaging regulations. The Select Committee is making inquiries into that matter, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the regulations are not working. I have previously mentioned the packaging that surrounds men's shirts, which does not seem to have decreased over the years. The use of bubble packs round goods in supermarkets continues to increase. The Environment Agency must take a tougher line in trying to reduce packaging.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) talked about not wanting an incinerator. I agree that he should work out a compact with the people of Brighton: if they could manage to have between 55 and 60 per cent. of their waste recycled, there would be no need for an incinerator. Certainly, once the material had
  606
  been recycled, very little calorific value would remain in it. That should be a challenge for the people: if they get their recycling right, they will not need an incinerator.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) talked about plastic being ploughed into the ground by strawberry farmers. The Environment Agency needs to look more closely into the kinds of materials going into the land. At least one can say that the plastic on strawberry fields has been used in production. However, it is a worrying development that waste paper and other materials are being spread on land, and 1 hope that more work will be done on that issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) raised the question of the Welbeck site. Representatives of the Environment Agency will appear before the Select Committee relatively soon, during our inquiry into waste, and we shall ask some detailed questions about the site. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) has always put forward his constituents' views strongly. He mentioned the design of dwellings, and I think that designs that deal more effectively with water retention would be most useful, especially designs that ensure that hard standing allows water to be absorbed.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be environmental impact studies on new ploughing up of land. It is a pity that that has taken so many years to achieve, because I suspect that most of the land that can be ploughed up has been ploughed up. This could be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. However, the measure is welcome, even if it has taken a long time to achieve. Many useful points have also been made about flooding.
  I believe that the Environment Agency has started to get its act together. Recent floods have been far more severe than those of two years ago, and the agency's record has been very good. I hope that debate on the issues will continue, and that the Environment Agency will move from strength to strength as it works hard to make life in Britain more attractive for us all.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  1.54 pm
  Ms Oona King: I am delighted and relieved to have secured this debate on speech and language therapy provision, because, since my election in 1997, I have met many families who are waging a war with the system, trying to get their children the treatment that they need. I have asked for this debate to explain directly to the Minister the frustration and injustice that many of my constituents feel. They believe, and I agree, that their children's education and life chances are being irreparably damaged because they cannot access speech and language therapy.
  I would like to set out the importance of speech and language therapy, which has a basic objective: to enable people to communicate. Without effective communication, people are excluded; not just from a social conversation, but from their families, their school environment and society. If children cannot communicate properly, they cannot be educated properly.
  The right to education is enshrined in many UN charters, the new Human Rights Act 1998—which came into force on 2 October this year—and the Children Act 1989. On paper, all British children receive those rights. In practice, in some areas, they do not. Tower Hamlets is one of those areas.
  In Tower Hamlets, the speech and language therapy service is currently operating "beyond crisis point". Those are the words of the chief executive of the Tower Hamlets health care trust, Christine Carter. She states that this is due first, to the enormity of the case loads; secondly, to the management of cultural diversity and the challenges that it brings; and thirdly, to the level of deprivation in Tower Hamlets. Other relevant factors are recruitment and retention of speech and language therapists. The shortage of trained and experienced therapists is manifest, and that includes occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists.
  In a recent survey, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found that of 276 posts advertised, only 50 per cent. were filled. Recruitment and retention is a particular problem in Tower Hamlets. Could my hon. Friend the Minister explain whether any steps are being taken to improve the training for speech and language therapists and to encourage students to take up that training? I hope that the Government will include speech and language therapists among the key worker groups which will receive help with housing in areas such as Tower Hamlets and in central London, where it is virtually impossible to buy a property if one is not exceptionally wealthy.
  The strain on SLT services in Tower Hamlets is evidenced by the high number of referrals; there are at least 40 new referrals every month. Tower Hamlets has four times the national average of children with hearing impairments. The number of children with complex medical and educational needs is rising. The number of children with autism in Tower Hamlets—and across the country—is rising. In Tower Hamlets, 40 to 50 per cent. of the children referred are bilingual. That requires
  608
  assessment and therapy in two languages. A consultation takes 75 minutes with a therapist and an interpreter, compared with 35 minutes with a therapist alone.
  Overall, Tower Hamlets has 14 funded therapists in post, but it should have 40. The waiting time is 12 to 18 months from referral to initial assessment appointment. That means inevitably that staff have no choice but to prioritise the needs of children under the age of five. That is obviously problematic because it means that older children with serious problems no longer have access to speech and language therapy. Following cuts in the 1996-97 financial year, Tower Hamlets had to restrict SLT provision to under-11s. Even those under the age of 11 in Tower Hamlets are not always receiving therapy. More astonishingly, even the under-fives in Tower Hamlets are having to wait for about a year for assessment.
  In the summer, I received a letter from Dr. Gordon Craig, of the Globe Town surgery in Roman road, about a four-year-old patient who was waiting for SLT assessment. He wrote that
  her hearing is poor and she is doing poorly at school. As you can see the current waiting time for a 1st appointment is 11 months and I find this extraordinary. I think if I had children I would be up in arms against this sort of delay in something that may be so potentially detrimental to the child's education. I am sure you will agree.
  I do agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that we must do everything in our power to enable such children to access services that are vital to their education and life chances.
  Unfortunately, in many cases, parents have to resort to tribunals to obtain the right educational provision for their children. For parents who are not familiar with the ins and outs of the civil service and government bureaucracy, the matter is further complicated; while speech therapy is provided by the health authority, overall responsibility for provision of special educational needs remains with the Department for Education and Employment. As a result, the provision of SLT is patchy; unexplained variations create a postcode lottery.
  I am exceptionally pleased, however, that the DFEE and the Department of Health established a working group on SLT. The group made its report this week. It quotes the special educational needs programme of action, published in November 1998, which noted that there are
  difficulties in securing therapy services for children with SEN, which partly result from the different statutory responsibilities and priorities of health authorities and LEAs, and from lack of clarity over funding. The difficulties are most pronounced in speech and language therapy but similar issues apply to occupational therapy and physiotherapy. There was clear agreement on the nature of the problem but not on possible solutions.
  The working group did its utmost to find possible solutions. Currently, however, even where solutions are forthcoming from the Government, they sometimes do not solve the problem in the way that one might expect. For example, Stewart Harris, the head teacher of Phoenix secondary and primary school in my constituency, wrote to me stating:
  Phoenix … receives Standards Fund (education support, matched funding from DfEE) which enables us to theoretically employ a Speech Therapist on two days a week to work with children with speech and language difficulties who are on the autistic spectrum. The Health Authority has been unable to provide consistent staffing to enable us to develop the project properly. For instance, over a

  609
  period of eighteen weeks, we have received speech and language support for only eight of these and are currently again without speech therapy for this project.
  That is the situation today. Mr. Harris continued:
  Feedback at a recent meeting with the Health Commissioner was of the view that the setting of priorities within Health depends on G.Ps. G.Ps see children with speech and language difficulties as being dealt with by health visitors and schools…It may be that greater emphasis needs to be given centrally by the Department of Health to the importance of early language development in preventing more severe difficulties emerging.
  Will my hon. Friend consider specifically that point about the importance of early language development within the Department's own framework and priorities?
  My constituent, Mohammed Nazmul Islam, received speech therapy until three years ago. Since then, his parents have fought a protracted and sometimes desperate battle to get the speech therapy that he needs. He is an 11-year-old child with Down's syndrome. After intervention from Tower Hamlets health care trust and with the help of the chief executive and after making inquiries myself, he is now receiving speech and language therapy, but not from a trained SLT therapist. That returns me to the problem of recruitment.
  To solve that problem, we need to consider the emphasis that the Department of Health places on SLT. Historically—since 1974—SLT has been regarded as either education or non-education provision. If the provision of SLT is deemed to be educational and included in part 3 of a child's statement, responsibility lies with the local education authority if the health authority is unable to provide it. In this case, the NHS is not under a statutory duty to provide SLT.
  The experience of many parents is that their children's statements do not specify the level of provision and support necessary for the children to receive an appropriate education. That risks leaving the provision open to interpretation, reduction and, in the worst cases, misinterpretation. If statements are unclear, they are unenforceable. There is an incentive for hard-worked, over-stretched and cash-strapped LEAs not to specify provision, because if they do, they will bind themselves to long-term financial commitments. So I should like to know whether the Government will issue LEAs with clear guidance on good practice that goes beyond the existing SEN code of practice, which includes guidelines on the provision of speech therapy.
  Currently, the link between health authorities and education legislation is somewhat tenuous, partly because of the fundamental differences in principles and access. We know that, in health care, there has to be rationing. However, in education, everyone is, in theory, supposed to have an automatic entitlement.
  The chief executive of Tower Hamlets health care trust believes that her department and the LEA work well together in endeavouring to provide SLT to children. But she would be the first to say that the shortage of speech therapists makes it impossible for them to fulfil the statements.
  The Government are taking the problem very seriously. They need to close what might be described as the co-operation gap in SLT provision. I warmly congratulate the DFEE on this week's announcement that extra support will be made available to help LEAs enhance their SLT services in partnership with the NHS and the voluntary sector. Some £10 million is being made available under the standards fund to support pilot SLT projects.
  610
  I hope that what the headmaster of Phoenix school said illustrates the problems that we face in practice and that the Government's excellent initiatives—which put money where our mouth is—help to solve the problems that children experience. I urge the Minister to take forward those initiatives.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I gently remind the hon. Lady that she should address the Chair.
  Ms King: Thank you for that instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should be most grateful to the Department of Health if it would look at the problems that exist between its provision for children and the provision made available by LEAs so that children in areas such as Tower Hamlets, where there are multiple indices of deprivation, can receive the speech and language therapy that will give them a fair chance in life.
  2.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing this debate on the important issue of speech and language therapy services.
  More than 1 million children in this country have speech and language difficulties, and adults who had no difficulties at an early age may encounter problems later in life, after strokes or other accidents. We think of speech and language therapists as working mainly with children, and it is important that intervention occurs as soon as a problem is identified, but we should not forget that older people may also need help.
  Speech and language therapists work with people of all ages who have communication difficulties, and children and adults with eating and drinking problems. Children make up more than 70 per cent. of their work load, as there are about 1.2 million children with speech and language difficulties in the United Kingdom.
  There are many reasons why children need speech and language therapy. Speech and language delay is one of the commonest forms of developmental delay. Some children need help because of the limited opportunities in their home environment. The links between deprivation and delayed development are well documented. Some children are born with difficulties that require the attention of a speech and language therapist, such as cerebral palsy, a hearing impairment, learning disability or cleft palate.
  The therapists also work with disabled babies and children who have difficulties in sucking, chewing and swallowing and those who, through accident or illness, have acquired communication or eating and drinking problems. Children with autistic spectrum disorder and specific speech and language disorder require intensive help. Other children need assistance because of delayed or disordered articulation or speech patterns, or problems with fluency, such as stammering.
  The demand for speech and language therapy has grown because of a combination of factors. The therapists educate and train other professionals working with children and adults who may have speech and language difficulties, and public awareness of their skills is also

  611
  greater than it once was, so referrals to them have increased and are often made earlier in the child's life or, in the case of adults, sooner after the onset of their illness or condition.
  Speech and language therapists increasingly work in a preventive capacity in new inter-agency initiatives, such as sure start and on track, and their role in the school setting has expanded in both mainstream and specialist schools. My hon. Friend referred to the report of the working group set up as a joint initiative by my Department and the Department for Education and Employment. The group has recommended some constructive ways of developing the links between education and health services, to improve provision for the children who need it. She will know that Tower Hamlets is among the local education authorities already receiving direct support from the DFEE's standards fund. All English LEAs will be able to use their standards fund allocation next year to enhance speech and language therapy.
  A research project was carried out under the aegis of the working group, under the direction of Dr. James Law. It provided a comprehensive overview of the nature and extent of speech and language therapy in England and Wales, identifying the factors that promote effective provision. The key messages were that there was a relatively healthy level of collaboration between local education authorities and speech and language therapy services in NHS trusts and that about 60 per cent. of the children receiving the services in primary and secondary schools have a statement of special educational needs.
  The research also uncovered significant variations in the provision across England and Wales, in the first instance attributable to issues within the speech and language therapy service, including problems with recruiting and retaining staff and variations in case load. I shall come in a moment to the measures that can be taken to tackle the shortage of therapists.
  The effectiveness of the therapy has been demonstrated in various ways, which has led to the professional input of the therapists being more valued, again adding to the pressure on the service. Some children also now present with more complex health needs, as a consequence of improvements and changes in medical technology that have substantially improved the life chances of premature and low-birthweight babies. Many of those children experience a degree of functional impairment in childhood and beyond, and some are severely disabled with very complex health needs. It is thus likely that a speech and language therapist will be a member of the multidisciplinary team that those children require.
  In Tower Hamlets—a borough with high levels of deprivation—we would anticipate a high incidence of children with speech and language difficulties. There is also a large black and minority ethnic community, which poses additional challenges to the speech and language therapists working in the borough. Speech and language therapy with bilingual children must involve interpreters and, where possible, co-workers fluent in the children's languages and familiar with their culture. At best, the speech and language therapist would be competent in their first language.
  612

  The number of therapists currently from black and ethnic minority communities is small, so the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists will draw up a recruitment and retention strategy to tackle the issue. Work with bilingual children is, of necessity, consuming of time and resources.
  I want to discuss some of the measures that can be taken locally and nationally to deal with some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. It is fair for me to point out that the problems that she described did not begin in the past two or three years. The failure of the previous Administration to invest sufficiently in training places led to the shortage of speech and language therapists. Although we are expanding the training capacity, it is a skilled and professional job. I am afraid that it will take time to put right the years of under-investment in this part of the national health service, as in others.
  It is right and proper that decisions on local services are taken locally. We want to encourage everyone who has an interest in improving health—patients and carers, organisations representing them and the local community in general—to have an input at local level to make the changes that make a real difference to people's lives. Vulnerable people are less likely to demand provision of services. We ask all with an interest in the subject to make sure that there are programmes to improve the health of the local population.
  As a Government, we have placed a requirement on every health authority to lead the local development of a health improvement programme—HIMP. The first HIMPs came into effect in April 1999. They have developed to cover a three-year rolling time frame, with part of the programme reviewed in depth each year. They articulate national priorities in a local context.
  I understand that the HIMP for the East London and the City health authority deals with learning disabilities and better services for vulnerable people. There may be scope to add more about speech and language therapy specifically. We would expect HIMPs to refer to investment in speech and language therapy services if there is a local need.
  I reassure my hon. Friend about her constituents' fears. Not all local priorities are set by general practitioners. It is true that we have devolved considerable responsibility for commissioning the detail of services to primary care groups and primary care trusts, but the commissioning of services must be carried out in line with the HIMP set locally. That is a process in which all the stakeholders participate and to which they must be signed up. The partners involved in drawing up a HIMP include the NHS trust, the primary care trust and the local authority—and not just its social services department. The process also involves the voluntary sector and local communities.
  I expect the focus of the development of a local strategy to improve learning disability services, including speech and language therapy, to be the HIMP process. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take a close interest in that strategic process, which creates the ability to tackle local needs for services such as speech therapy if they are judged to be a priority locally. With such services, it is not possible to prescribe uniform provision nationally, because the extent and nature of local needs and existing local provision can vary widely.

  613
  When there is a health action zone, it should act as a catalyst for organisations and the local community to work together in cutting across geographical and structural barriers to speed up the process of improving health. I know that in east London the HIMP draws heavily on the work of the health action zone partnership. Improving access to services is an important priority for the health action zone and one of its early achievements can be seen in Newham where, working with Newham community trust and social services, a speech and language service is now up and running at the Shrewsbury family resource centre. That includes a drop-in service to provide direct access to speech therapy staff.
  We are committed to sensible and, I hope, more dynamic ways of working for people who are more vulnerable than most. The successful development and implementation of HIMPs is critical if the goals of reducing inequality, improving health and delivering better health and social care are to be achieved. We want to secure equal opportunity of access for people who are at risk. We have made it clear that the health care needs of populations, including the impact of deprivation, will be a driving force in determining where cash goes. For example, the East London and the City health authority has received one of the best financial allocations for 1999-2000 and for 2000-01—in percentage terms, the second highest increase in England.
  Although there are many pressures on the NHS, the unprecedented increase in investment that it is enjoying enables us to be more confident that, as the staff are trained and become available, we will be able to address the issues raised by my hon. Friend. Reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country by 2003-04. The NHS reiterates our commitment to that.
  The White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" required local targets to be set for reducing health inequalities. The NHS plan makes it clear that for the first time local targets will be reinforced by the creation of national health inequalities targets to narrow the health gap in childhood and throughout life between socio-economic groups and between the most deprived groups and the rest of the country.
  We need to ensure that trained staff are available to fill funded posts. The problem in many parts of the health service is increasingly not so much the lack of funding for those posts but the lack of people to fill them. The Department of Health and the NHS are now responsible
  614
  for determining the number of training places in speech therapy. Responsibility and funding for that was transferred from the Department for Education and Employment in 1998. Since then, there has been an increase of 15 per cent. in training commissions. A further £21 million will be spent in the current financial year to provide additional training places for up to 490 key professionals. That figure includes funding to commission extra speech and language therapist training places. This year, we have already increased and funded 50 places over and above the NHS's commissions.
  Increases in therapy and other key health professionals' training places have recently been announced in the NHS plan and there will be 4,450 more places by 2004. Work is in hand to determine how many additional speech and language therapy training places will be commissioned as a result, taking account of increased demand arising from national service frameworks and other Government initiatives. Consultants have been commissioned to carry out a labour market analysis of speech and language therapists. The results of that project will be used to inform recommendations on future commissioning numbers.
  We do not want children or older people to wait to receive the services that they need. My hon. Friend will be aware of the targets on waiting times that we have set in the NHS plan. Our ultimate objective, provided we can recruit the extra staff and the NHS makes the necessary reforms, is to have a maximum three-month wait for any stage of treatment by the end of 2008. My hon. Friend will know that the NHS plan sets interim targets across the service that will lead to improvements. We have enabled people to influence the provision of local services and it is important that they exercise that capacity. We are determined to make the new systems for improving health care work in practice.
  My hon. Friend made specific points about the relationship between health funding and school standards funding. I will draw them to the attention of appropriate colleagues to see whether more needs to be done. I hope she will recognise that we acknowledge the issues that she and her constituents face, but we have set in place the resources, extra training and new investment that is needed to enable us to deliver the NHS plan.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Two o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many names were appended to the petition presented to the Prime Minister last month regarding meat inspection charges; and what action he has taken in response. [137568]

  Ms Quin
  Although not counted individually, there were several thousands of signatures on the petition. We are aware of the considerable public support for the recommendations made by Colin Maclean in respect of meat hygiene charges for small and medium-sized abattoirs. The Government are considering whether those recommendations may be implemented.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the geographical spread of abattoirs and their proximity to livestock production areas.[137556]

  Ms Quin
  There is over-capacity in the slaughtering sector and a reasonable spread of abattoirs across the country.

  Despite the closure of some abattoirs in recent months, we are not aware that animal welfare has been in any way compromised by longer journey times from farm to slaughter. The welfare of livestock in transit and at their arrival at abattoirs is closely monitored.

  Field Margins
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1128W, what further discussions he has had with other EU ministers regarding rules on hedgerows and field margins; and if he will make a statement. [136930]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]: The reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 7 November 2000, Official Report, column 150W, explained that the European Commission had proposed a change to the rules of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) which would allow United Kingdom farmers to continue, on a permanent basis, to treat hedges and other field margins in the same way as they had done in the past so far as their inclusion in IACS claims was concerned. I am pleased to say that the adoption of this proposal has now been secured. It will enter into force on 1 January 2001.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many samples of imported meat have been tested for classical swine fever virus by Government scientists since July. [138412]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: Meat which is legally imported must be accompanied by veterinary certificates giving assurances about the health status of the animals from which it came. It is not routinely tested for specific diseases such as classical swine fever virus. In connection with the recent outbreaks in East Anglia, epidemiological studies revealed that the strain was an Asian one. Work was then carried out to establish in which countries it had previously been reported. From 18 September, the Government have been conducting tests on any meat imported from those countries. Since none of the countries concerned is approved to export meat to the European Community the tests are carried out only when illegally imported meat is identified. To date two such tests have been conducted, each of which gave a negative result.

  Departmental Legal Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many legal advisers are employed by his Department; and how many of those advise on matters relating to animals. [138920]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: The Ministry currently has 45 lawyers in post, of whom six advise on matters relating to animal health and welfare. Other lawyers (eg prosecutors and litigators) also deal with these issues from time to time.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Children's Society
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent discussions he has had with the Children's Society regarding(a) the adoption and (b) the fostering of children within their care; and if he will make a statement. [140027]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners' responsibility is to manage their investments so as to provide support for the payment of clergy stipends, pensions and other legal commitments. As to the Children's Society, this is not a matter for the Church Commissioners.

PRIME MINISTER

  COP6
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will attend COP6 in The Hague. [139509]

  The Prime Minister
  A top-level delegation led by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment is representing the UK at the climate change negotiations in The Hague.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137194]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  DETR(C) and its Agencies use the services of two relocation companies.

  Bradford and Bingley: This contract commenced in April 2000. It was advertised through OJEC. It is a three-year contract and the approximate annual value is £35,000 but this fluctuates from year to year.

  Phoenix ARC: This contract was extended for a year to 31 March 2001. It was advertised through OJEC. The initial contract term was three years. The approximate annual cost is £8,000 but fluctuates from year to year.

  Railway Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the former Principal Rail Safety Inspector was relieved of responsibility for safety of the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [138644]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: This is internal management issue for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). I have asked the HSE Director General to write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Local Transport Plan Settlement announced on 13 November allocated to Stoke-on-Trent a reduction in capital allocations between 2000–01 and 2002–03.[139502]

  Mr. Hill
  The capital allocations for highway maintenance were calculated using a formula applied on a consistent basis to all authorities. One criteria was that authorities should not receive a smaller allocation in 2001–02 or 2002–03 than they did in 2000–01. However, allocations were rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  Vehicle Licences
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will assess the benefit of introducing a fixed sum per licence payment mechanism for post offices issuing vehicle licences. [139496]

  Mr. Hill
  The current agreement between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Post Office Network Banking (PONB) expires at the end of March 2002. A variety of payment methods will be considered when negotiations take place on the next agreement.
  328W
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will make it its policy to grant all post offices in England and Wales the authority to issue vehicle licences. [139495]

  Mr. Hill
  No. The current nation-wide network of 4,000 motor vehicle Licence-issuing post offices provides the best balance between the needs of customers and cost to the taxpayer.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Tidy Britain Group's proposals on the disposal of abandoned vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [139501]

  Mr. Hill
  My officials are currently discussing with interested parties including the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers how to improve the legislation and arrangements for abandoned vehicles. We have replied to the Tidy Britain Groups's letter which set out their proposals and I have placed a copy of the correspondence in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to(a) review the Union Railways Property's handling of land acquisition programme in relation to the new high speed rail link in Kent and (b) seek representations from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Complaints Commissioner; and if he will make a statement. [139684]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Secretary of State's powers under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) Act 1996 only allow for the acquisition and retention of as much land as is needed for the operation of the CTRL. The application of these powers is closely regulated by my Department and its engineering advisers. For properties that are not actually required for the CTRL there is a Discretionary Purchase Scheme operated by Union Railways and policed for consistency and fairness by an independent Discretionary Purchase Auditor who makes regular reports to this Department.

  (b) The Complaints Commissioner has no locus in property matters. There is a recognised statutory mechanism for the remedy of disputes arising from compulsory purchase through the Lands Tribunal. In addition Union Railways are actively promoting the availability of a range of other new disputes resolution mechanisms which are simpler and quicker for owners and occupiers.

  Road Safety Schemes
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been spent, in each of the past five years, on community road safety schemes in the UK; and what statistics his Department collects centrally on such schemes. [139472]
  329W
  Mr. Hill
  My Department receives figures annually from local authorities (in England) on road safety expenditure. Over the last five years expenditure has been:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  50

  1996–97

  55

  1997–98

  60

  1998–99

  40

  1999–2000

  60

  Statistics for road safety schemes are not held centrally but are a matter for each local authority.

  Rural Bus Challenge (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what powers he has to fine Kent county council in respect of the implementation of the Swale Unified Network in the Rural Bus Challenge 1999 Fund; [139673]

  (2) when Kent county council will implement the Swale Unified Network; [139672]

  (3) if Kent county council accrues interest on unspent elements of the Rural Bus Challenge 1999 Fund; and if this is ringfenced. [139671]

  Mr. Hill
  Kent county council were successful in the Rural Bus Challenge 1999 with a bid for the Swale Unified Network project. None of the Department's grant awarded to this project has yet been paid to the council, though an initial payment will shortly be due on the basis of forecast expenditure in this financial year. The question of interest on unspent grant has not therefore arisen.

  Grant is available, up to the amount awarded, in respect of the costs actually incurred by the council in implementing the project as described in its successful bid. The conditions of the grant are set out in Special Grant Report No. 54, approved by Parliament in March this year. These conditions include the requirement on the authority to repay to the Department any grant received which is found after audit to have been used otherwise than provided for under the terms of the Report.

  The timing of the implementation of the project, subject to the conditions in the Special Grant Report, is a matter for the council. I understand there have been some difficulties implementing the project as quickly as planned, but that it is now being taken forward.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much of the Rural Bus Challenge 1999 awarded to Kent county council has been spent to date; [139441]

  (2) when Kent county council (a) applied for funding for the Rural Bus Challenge 1999 and (b) was awarded funding; and how much was awarded. [139440]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Kent county council submitted its bid for the 1999 Rural Bus Challenge competition on 30 September 1999. The results of the competition were announced on 11 January 2000. Parliament approved the Special Grant Report authorising this and other Challenge awards in March. Kent was awarded £381,000 for the Swale Unified Network project.
  330W
  I understand that the county council has had some difficulties implementing this project as quickly as planned, but that it is now being taken forward. None of the grant awarded has yet been paid to the council, though an initial payment will shortly be due on the basis of forecast expenditure for this financial year.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guarantees have been(a) sought by his Department and (b) given by Legacy plc in relation to the proposed acquisition of the Millennium Dome site. [140187]

  Ms Armstrong
  The details of discussions so far with Legacy plc and the issues to be pursued through negotiations are all commercially confidential while negotiations continue. In general terms, the Government have sought assurances about Legacy's scheme in relation to each of the published evaluation criteria for the competition.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the value is of the bid by Legacy plc for the Millennium Dome site; [140188]

  (2) if the arrangements for Legacy plc to acquire the Millennium Dome site will include provision for a down payment; and if he will make a statement. [140189]

  Ms Armstrong
  Details of the proposed overall financial consideration for the sale of the Dome to Legacy plc must remain commercially confidential at this stage. The arrangements for Legacy plc to acquire the Millennium Dome will include a cash consideration on exchange of contracts and a further cash consideration on completion of the sale, as well as other components.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the terms and conditions attached to the granting of preferred bidder status for the Millennium Dome site to Legacy plc. [140186]

  Ms Armstrong
  Such issues are commercially confidential while negotiations with Legacy plc continue.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 25W, on the Millennium Dome, from which parties he received expressions of interest in procuring the Dome after Nomura withdrew its bid. [140219]

  Ms Armstrong
  Both the Dome Europe and Legacy bids have been assessed within the framework of the competition to find a long-term sustainable use for the Millennium Dome. A number of unsolicited expressions of interest in the Dome have separately been received from third parties, mostly submitted in confidence or of a superficial nature. Since the Government have been pursuing a competition on a defined basis, these expressions of interest have not been evaluated.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 20 November 2000,Official Report,

  331W
  column 25W, on the Millennium Dome, what the outstanding contractual issues are; and if he will publish the agreed timetable for resolving all such issues. [140217]

  Ms Armstrong
  The details of the issues to be pursued through negotiations with Legacy plc are commercially confidential while negotiations continue. If all goes well, we expect to exchange contracts during February. Progress will be reviewed regularly.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on local roads of the development and operation of a business park inside the Millennium Dome. [140184]

  Ms Armstrong
  The evaluation criteria for the Dome legacy competition include that schemes should demonstrate minimum reliance on access by car and maximum use of public transport. The Legacy plc scheme conforms with this principle. The details will be addressed through the planning process, initially through consideration by the London Borough of Greenwich, who are familiar with the issues.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plan the Government have in the event of the failure of negotiations with Legacy plc to procure the Millennium Dome site. [140190]

  Ms Armstrong
  In the event of the failure of negotiations with Legacy plc, the Government would pursue other possible uses of the Dome.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of commercial demand for a business park inside the Millennium Dome. [140185]

  Ms Armstrong
  The evaluation criteria for the Dome legacy competition include the expectation that the winning scheme will be commercially and financially successful. Legacy plc has provided advice on likely commercial demand for a business park and a business plan related to this, which have been evaluated by the Government advisers. This evaluation is confidential. Further development of evidence of commercial demand will be important in conducting negotiations towards exchange of contracts.

  GoVia
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Strategic Rail Authority awarded the South-Central rail franchise to GoVia in preference to Connex. [140312]

  Mr. Hill
  The proposals put forward by GoVia and Connex Transport UK Ltd. both offered substantial improvements over current standards of service. However, the Franchising Director considered that GoVia demonstrated that they have the vision to bring about a step change in quality, and the capacity to deliver, while offering better value for money.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the franchise agreement reached with GoVia in respect of the South-Central franchise(a)precludes the closure of any
  332W
  station and (b) maintains at present levels as a minimum the present timetable operated by Connex on each of its South-Central routes; [140307]

  (2) on what date he expects responsibility for the South-Central franchise to transfer to GoVia. [140313]

  Mr. Hill
  A new franchise agreement will be signed with GoVia once detailed negotiations and funding plans have been developed and terms have been agreed between them and Connex Transport UK Ltd. for the early transfer of the existing South Central franchise. GoVia do not currently propose the closure of any station included in this franchise. Service provision will be based on existing Passenger Service Requirements (PSRs), which provide a specified minimum service level. Where the PSR is currently augmented by higher levels of service, the aggregate additional train mileage will be incorporated as a separate contractual obligation.

  House Building (Tewkesbury)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review Gloucestershire County Council's Structure Plan's allocation of house building numbers to Tewkesbury, following the floods in that area; and if he will make a statement.[140023]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No. Both the Gloucestershire Structure Plan, adopted by Gloucestershire County Council in November 1999, and the draft Tewkesbury Local Plan, deposited by Tewkesbury Borough Council in November 1998, contain policies restricting development in areas at direct risk of flooding or where it would increase the risk of flooding.

  A417
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he took of the plans to build extra houses, industrial and retail units at Brockworth, Gloucestershire, when assessing improvements to the A417 at Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill; and if he will make a statement. [140283]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government Office for the South West is considering with the Highways Agency how the traffic problems associated with the A417 trunk road between Nettleton Bottom and the Brockworth Bypass might best be addressed.

  Ashchurch Station
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with train operating companies about services to and from Ashchurch Station; and if he will make a statement. [140177]

  Mr. Hill
  Neither Ministers nor the shadow Strategic Rail Authority have been party to any discussions with train operators about services to and from Ashchurch Station.

  Marine Accidents Investigation Branch
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much the
  333W
  Marine Accidents Investigation Branch investigations into the sinking of the (a) Derbyshire, (b) Marchioness and (c) Gaul, cost. [139818]

  Mr. Hill
  The Derbyshire sank in 1980 well before the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch (MAIB) had been established and the Branch played a very limited role in the investigations into the ship's loss. The cost of the MAIB's involvement cannot be separately identified but was not significant. Overall, the cost to the Department of the Derbyshire investigations up to and including the re-opened Formal Investigation are estimated as totalling between £9 and £10 million, including legal fees.

  The MAIB undertook an investigation into the loss of the Marchioness and has, more recently, assisted the Attorney-General in the Formal Investigation which is currently being held. The costs of individual MAIB Investigations are not separately recorded. Overall, the cost to the Department of the Marchioness investigations, including the current Formal Investigation, is estimated at some £6 million, including legal fees.

  The Gaul sank in 1974 and a Formal Investigation was subsequently held. Following the location of the wreck of the vessel by a TV film crew the MAIB undertook an underwater survey of the vessel. The survey cost some £600,000 and the MAIB subsequently produced a report of their survey including model tests undertaken on their behalf. The Formal Investigation into the loss of the Gaul was re-opened and the MAIB are currently assisting the Attorney-General in his preparatory work which will include a re-survey of the wreck. It is too early to estimate the likely costs which will fall to the Department and will include the subsequent hearings before a Wreck Commissioner and legal fees.

  Heathrow
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the viability of creating specific ring-fenced slots at Heathrow for essential regional air services. [140092]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has recently produced a paper for the Department on the economics of ring-fencing slots. No detailed study has been done of the practicalities involved. However, the Government are not generally attracted to ring-fencing slots for particular air services as this would introduce an element of undesirable rigidity into the slot allocation system. The current arrangement, where slots are not route-specific, allows changes in the routes operated by airlines in response to market developments. Without this flexibility there would be restrictions in the scope to develop new business and limitations on the development of competition on some routes.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation and management of slot allocation at Heathrow Airport. [140168]

  Mr. Mullin
  Slot allocation at airports like Heathrow, where demand for slots significantly exceeds supply, is governed by European Regulation EC95/93. An independent co-ordinator makes the allocations using a set of priority criteria that reflects the European Regulation, international guidelines and any local rules. The 334W
  co-ordinator is charged with making allocations in a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. I am satisfied that the Heathrow co-ordinator, Airport Co-ordination Ltd., operates in this way.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will assess the benefits of providing a retail outlet selling basic provisions in the atrium of Portcullis House. [140270]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The original proposals for Portcullis House included a small shop off the courtyard selling a limited range of goods. Following soundings made by my Committee, it was subsequently decided that the needs of hon. Members and others working in the House could be served better by letting one of the shop units on Bridge Street for use as a small supermarket. Negotiations are now in their final stages and I am pleased to advise the hon. Member that it is expected that the minimart will open early in the new year. The terms of the lease require the tenant to keep the shop open late in the evening, broadly in line with the sittings of the House.

DEFENCE

  Tornado
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Tornado GR4 Mid Life Update. [140561]

  Dr. Moonie
  The integration of TIALD on to the Tornado GR4, as anticipated, achieved a Military Aircraft Release in July and is being used in training by our front-line crews.

  As experience has increased in using the new software, a number of reliability problems have been encountered with integration of the software supporting the TIALD pod with the Tornado GR4's computer. These problems are being urgently addressed by the contractor, who is working on a new release of software expected early next year. We are, therefore, delaying plans to deploy the GR4 operationally. The contractor, supported by MOD, has embarked upon an urgent investigation into the cause of the current problems and will report progress shortly. In the meantime, Tornado GR1, Jaguar and Harrier GR7 aircraft will continue to provide the operational capability.

  RAF Brize Norton
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF Brize Norton. [137725]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Brize Norton is home to the RAF's VC10 and TriStar Air-to-Air Refuelling/Air Transport aircraft, which are due to be replaced from 2007 under the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme. We are currently investigating the potential for achieving a solution under the Private Finance Initiative which
  335W
  would involve a commercial consortium working in close partnership with the RAF to provide an Air-to-Air Refuelling service.

  Once an Invitation to Negotiate has been issued, we will evaluate the proposals for meeting the FSTA requirement. Final decisions on the programme are not anticipated before 2002.

  In seeking Private Finance Initiative bids for FSTA we do not plan to place commercial constraints on the competing consortia by specifying the UK location of the operating base. However, any proposal to move Air-to-Air Refuelling operations from RAF Brize Norton would need to provide us with best value for money and protect our operational capability. At the same time, and without prejudicing the FSTA programme, we are looking at some further commercialisation of RAF Brize Norton to utilise irreducible spare capacity.

  In addition, I announced on 7 June 2000, Official Report, column 389, that RAF Brize Norton would be the future home of the C17 fleet, which will provide a strategic air transport capability. RAF Brize Norton is also the location for a number of key operational units.

  Type 675 Jammer
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the electronic countermeasures system Type 675 is being removed from Royal Navy service. [138425]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are a number of factors which have resulted in the decision to remove Type 675 from Royal Navy service. Essentially the maritime emphasis has shifted away from large-scale open ocean naval operations towards the littoral. In addition the air threat in the littoral is more varied and complex and, at a time when Anti Ship Missile technology continues to grow and proliferate, the provision of an effective maritime Anti Air Warfare capability is essential to provide air superiority. To meet challenges of the new operating environment the Royal Navy has had to review all its countermeasure systems. The decision to withdraw the Type 675 jammer from service was taken as part of this review.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many headquarters staff are employed by DARA at RAF St. Athan. [138887]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 October 2000, the Defence Aviation Repair Agency employed 79 staff in its head office at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it was decided to designate the location of the DARA headquarters at RAF St. Athan as an interim measure. [139325]

  Mr. Spellar
  The decision to locate the DARA Headquarters as an interim measure in vacant accommodation at RAF St. Athan was taken in July 1998, prior to the launch of the Agency.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans DARA has to re-locate its headquarters from RAF St. Athan to the Bath-Bristol Area. [139326]
  336W
  Mr. Spellar
  DARA Headquarters were established at RAF St. Athan as an interim measure prior to the launch of the Agency on 1 April 1999. Their location will be subject to review once the Agency achieves Trading Fund Status.

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current inventory is for each armed service of Lynx helicopters; and how many of these are operationally available.[139236]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 15 November, the total number of Lynx aircraft held by the army was 124, of which 84 were allocated to units. Of these, 32 were fully serviceable. The Royal Navy had a total of 74 Lynx aircraft, of which 48 constituted the Active Fleet. Of these, 34 were fully serviceable. The RAF does not have any Lynx helicopters.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the flying hours logged for Lynx helicopters, of all types, for each of the past three years. [139237]

  Mr. Spellar
  The flying hours logged for Lynx helicopters, of all types, for each of the past three financial years are shown in the table.

  Lynx type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Mark 3

  10,696

  9,990

  8,066

  Mark 7

  27,154

  25,148

  22,982

  Mark 8

  3,772

  4,220

  5,459

  Mark 9

  4,152

  4,013

  4,469

  Total

  45,774

  43,371

  40,976

  Penguins (Falklands)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of aircraft activity in the Falklands on the breeding patterns of penguins. [139413]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Minister of Defence has not made any assessment and Falklands Conservation has not carried out specific research on the effects of aircraft overflying penguin colonies in the Falkland Islands. We are not aware that there has been any other related research with any scientific basis. Mount Pleasant Airfield Flying Orders specifically ban aircrews from overflying areas of the Falkland Islands which are known to be sensitive breeding sites of penguins. Those Orders are supported by a detailed map of the sites.

  Royal Navy (Diving)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the absence in the Royal Navy of saturation-trained personnel and support with expertise in deep-water diving for long periods and the employment of foreign offshore civilian divers for missions involving national security and the recovery of sensitive materials. [139720]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has effectively used civilian saturation-trained divers since the early 1990s. It is not cost-effective for the Royal Navy to retain saturation-trained personnel for isolated incidents. UK
  337W
  contractors involved in this area of work have the appropriate level of security clearance. In addition our Salvage and Mooring Organisation maintains the ability, with the use of commercial assets, to provide assistance to or recovery of a nuclear submarine or the recovery of objects from the seabed. This arrangement allows MOD to tailor the recovery to the specific tasks. Foreign offshore divers would however be used if they were best placed to prevent loss of life.

  NATO Staffing Costs
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has contributed to NATO staffing costs in each of the past 10 years. [140019]

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

  Cluster Munitions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of NATO's estimate of the failure rate of cluster munitions deployed in Kosovo. [139765]

  Mr. Spellar
  The use of cluster munitions during the Kosovo campaign was a matter for individual nations. The cluster munitions used by the UK have a manufacturer's estimated failure rate of approximately 5 per cent. The failure rate of other nations' cluster munitions (which have different specifications) may vary, but any assessment is a matter for these nations. We are not aware of any agreed NATO estimate of the failure rate of cluster munitions used by Allies in Kosovo.

  Controlled Substances
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and(c) the RAF tested positive for the use of controlled substances in the most recent testing programme, stating in each instance what percentage of trained strength tested positive for (a) cannabis, (b) cocaine, (c) heroin and
  (d) other controlled substances; and if he will make a statement. [137861]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his answer, 14 November 2000, c. 576W]: An amendment should be made to certain figures provided in respect of Army personnel. In the period 1 January to mid October 2000, 522 Army personnel, not the 580 given in my previous reply, tested positive. Of the trained strength, 0.26 per cent. tested positive for cannabis, 0.04 per cent. for cocaine, 0.10 per cent. for other controlled substances (Ecstasy, LSD, Amphetamines, Benzodiazepines and Performance Enhancing Drugs), and 0.001 per cent. tested positive for heroin.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will hold a public inquiry into financial and management issues at the Dome. [134610]
  338W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: Full and rigorous scrutiny of the project is under way. The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the Millennium Dome was published on 9 November, an Opposition day motion on the Dome was debated on 13 November, and the Committee of Public Accounts took oral evidence from Accounting Officers on 15 November. The Government have no plans to carry out a public inquiry.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to ensure that the Dome will not be demolished. [138922]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 20 November 2000, Official Report, column 25W.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery money so far received by the NMEC is(a) a loan and (b) a grant; and what terms and conditions apply to repayments. [139017]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The Millennium Commission does not have the statutory powers to make loans and has never offered loans to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). Grant made to NMEC is repayable under the terms of the Grant Memorandum from any operational surplus or asset disposal achieved after the organisation has met its other contractual liabilities.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the proposed plans for the disposal of the Millennium Dome and the dispersal and division of the resultant proceeds. [139018]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 20 November 2000, Official Report, column 25W. Ministers are currently considering how the proceeds will be dealt with and will reach a decision in due course.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the date by which the Millennium Dome will be available for occupation by a purchaser. [140150]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 25W.

  Audio-visual Industry
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in the work of the audio-visual industry skills taskforce. [140182]

  Janet Anderson
  The Audio Visual Industries Training Group (AVITG) was established jointly by my Department and Skillset, the National Training Organisation for the sector, in 1999 as a new cross-industry group to investigate and report on the current and future skills required in
  339W
  broadcasting and the electronic media and to recommend the training and education needed to develop these skills, so that the UK can compete effectively in the world media market place.

  The Group has been particularly active in scoping and defining the sector. As one of its main activities it has undertaken the first ever census of the UK media industries. The Census has been published today and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It will be followed by a survey of freelances working across the industry in order to identify their current and predicted future training and skills needs.

  The AVITG has received a large number of submissions to date and will continue to receive evidence and submissions until December. It is on target to produce its final report and recommendations next spring.

  British Museum (Stonework)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the trustees of the British Museum concerning legal action taken by the museum in relation to the provision of French stone for building work on the South Portico. [140179]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Any decision on whether to take legal action in relation to the provision of French stone is a matter for the British Museum. I have not discussed this with the trustees but I have been advised by the British Museum that they have taken legal advice. I am informed that as a result they have held back payments to the contractor. They will consider the grounds for legal action in the light of the conclusions of the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers due in December.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are being taken by the British Museum to recover moneys owed by Easton Masonry Company (Portland) Ltd. [140180]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am advised by the British Museum that they have withheld payments under the contract amounting to £300,000.

  Classification of Buildings
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce a right of appeal to individuals whose houses are classed as Ancient Monuments by English Heritage; and if he will make a statement. [140026]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for compiling the schedule of ancient monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. He is advised in this task by English Heritage. My right hon. Friend is precluded from scheduling any structure occupied as a dwelling house (unless it is occupied by the caretaker of the property or his family). The 1979 Act does not provide a statutory right of appeal against decisions to schedule monuments, but relevant representations from owners will always be considered.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost to private business of the UK entering the euro in the first year of its operation; what studies he has made of the cost to private businesses in those countries which have joined; and if he will make a statement. [140024]

  Mr. Timms
  The business cost of changeover would depend on the overall approach and individual decisions that businesses took.

  Road Fuel
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commitments he has received from major oil companies relating to the introduction of ultra low-sulphur petrol in UK garages. [138507]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The Government intend to cut the duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol and widen its differential with unleaded petrol by a further 2p per litre in Budget 2001, conditional on the oil companies guaranteeing nationwide access to its environmental benefits.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if judges benefit from an extra statutory concession for the benefit in kind of the use of judges' lodgings for(a) accommodation and associated expenditure, (b) private entertaining and (c) use of chauffeur and car for travel to and from work at court; and if he will make a statement. [139438]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: No. The same rules governing the tax treatment of benefits and expenses apply to judges as to employees and office-holders generally.

  Upper Earnings Limit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list to two decimal places the percentage increase in the upper earnings limit on national insurance in each of the past 10 years. [139838]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: The levels of the upper earnings limit are given in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual available in the Library of the House.

  1R35
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal costs have been incurred by Her Majesty's Government in defending the action for judicial review of IR35 brought by the Professional Contractors Group. [139908]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The extent to which the costs of the legal action will fall to the Government will depend on the outcome of the case.

  Integrated Child Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each form of financial support available to families with dependent children through the tax and benefit system, indicating in each case whether it will be replaced by the proposed integrated child credit; and for those which are not to be included in the integrated child credit, if he will set out the reasons for their exclusion. [139060]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The 2000 pre-Budget report reaffirmed the Government's intention to introduce a better integrated system of support for children from 2003. The Government are carefully considering the detailed design parameters of this new integrated credit.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Children's Tax Credit forms have been sent out; how many completed forms have been returned; and how many forms have been returned by people who are ineligible for the credit. [134542]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not generally hold information to enable it to identify which taxpayers have children so to maximise the number of eligible people applying it made a point of sending the claim form out widely. Some 7.8 million forms have been sent out to PAYE taxpayers and, by 20 October 2000, 2.6 million forms have been returned. Self-employed taxpayers can claim in the normal way when they receive their tax return for the year beginning April 2001. There are no figures available on the number of people who have returned the form and are ineligible for the credit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Defence Service
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates he has made of the caseload that the proposed pilot of the criminal defence service in England and Wales will undertake in the four years of the proposed start-up phase. [140175]

  Mr. Lock
  No caseload estimate has yet been made. Individual estimates, for each salaried defence service office, will be settled once final decisions have been made on the location of the offices and the timing of their opening.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what business plan has been prepared for the proposed pilot of the criminal defence service in England and Wales. [140170]

  Mr. Lock
  Each salaried defence service office will operate to its own business plan, as the issues facing each office will be unique to it. These will be developed once the office locations have been settled.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the estimated start up costs of the proposed pilot of the criminal defence service in England and Wales; and how they are made up. [140172]
  342W
  Mr. Lock
  We expect the Legal Services Commission will spend up to £3 million in the financial year 2001–02 on salaried defenders.

  Precise start-up costs will depend on the exact location and size of each office.

  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the estimated annual costs are of the proposed pilot of the criminal defence service in England and Wales, including the cost of support services from the Legal Service Commission central services; and how they are made up. [140173]

  Mr. Lock
  No final decisions have been made about the total costs of the pilots. Initial estimates are that costs will be up to £3 million in the first year.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many offices it intends to open under the proposed pilot of the criminal defence service in England and Wales; and where those offices will be located. [140171]

  Mr. Lock
  It is planned initially to open six salaried defence service offices, at least three of which will open for business on 2 April 2001. A shortlist of nine locations is being considered, namely Carlisle, Dover, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield, Swansea, Middlesbrough, Oxford and Gloucester. Final decisions will be made on the locations of all six offices by the end of this year.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the estimated numbers of(a) legally qualified and (b) non-legally qualified staff who will be employed in the proposed pilot of the criminal defence service in England and Wales. [140174]

  Mr. Lock
  The number of legally qualified and non-legally qualified staff employed in the salaried defence offices will depend on the locations of the offices and the success of the offices in attracting and retaining clients through the quality of the services they provide. Sufficient staff will be employed at each location to provide the comprehensive, 24 hour a day, seven day a week service necessary. Initial numbers will be agreed in conjunction with each office head.

  Public Defence Solicitors Officer
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Public Defence Solicitors Officer pilot scheme in Edinburgh. [140176]

  Mr. Lock
  An on-going assessment by a team of researchers is being made of the PDSO pilot scheme in Edinburgh for the Scottish Executive. Account will continue to be taken of the results of the research programme into this office as they emerge. Although, the detailed scope and nature of the Edinburgh pilot is different to the proposals made for England and Wales, both my officials and I have visited Edinburgh to ensure that we are able to learn from their experience.

  I have visited the Scottish pilot Public Defence Solicitors Office in Edinburgh and was impressed by their professionalism, commitment and effectiveness, views which were endorsed by my discussions with the local judiciary.
  343W

  Judges
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take account of(a) candidates' home addresses proximity to Crown courts on circuits and (b) the need for High Court judges on that circuit when making appointments to the position of High Court judge; and if he will make a statement. [139729]

  Mr. Lock
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will recommend for appointment to each High Court vacancy the candidate who appears to him to be best qualified, with reference to the published criteria alone.

  The home address of the candidate is not a relevant factor. Likewise, the needs of a circuit are not a relevant factor in considering an individual's suitability for appointment. High Court judges are not appointed to individual circuits; they go on circuit to meet the business needs of the courts as they arise. However, the needs of the justice system as a whole are taken into account when assessing the number and type of vacancies on the High Court Bench.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance is issued to High Court judges on(a) commuting from home and (b) staying in judges' lodgings when sitting on circuit. [139736]

  Mr. Lock
  No such guidance has been issued to High Court judges by the Department.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance is issued to circuit judges on(a) commuting from home and (b) claiming overnight hotel accommodation expenses when sitting on circuit away from their home court. [139735]

  Mr. Lock
  No precise limit of distance or travelling time within which it would be considered reasonable for a judge to take hotel accommodation rather than return home has been fixed; cases are considered in the light of the individual circumstances, taking account of such matters as the method of travel, the time of year and road conditions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made to members of the Council of Europe to increase the budget of the European Court of Human Rights; how many cases are before the court; how many such cases were registered(a) before and (b) after the establishment of the full-time court; what his estimate is of the average time taken for the court to reach a decision; and what proposals he has to improve the procedures of the court. [139082]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is for the President of the European Court of Human Rights to propose any increases he considers necessary in the Court's budget, and for the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (CoE) to propose how these should be accommodated in the CoE Ordinary Budget. On 1 September 2000, there were 15,107 344W
  registered applications pending before the Court. About 3,400 of these were registered before the new Court came into operation in November 1998. At present, the Court's objective is that, from the time of application, cases should be decided within three years. The Court has a longer term objective of reducing this to two years. The Court President has made a number of proposals to improve the efficiency and output of the Court, for example with new IT equipment and additional staff. Member states will shortly be asked to consider these proposals and their budgetary implications.

  Adrian Thorpe
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those people who were issued a copy of the document produced by Adrian Thorpe on Derry in June 1972; what was his Department's response to Adrian Thorpe's document; if he will place a copy of the document in the Library; and what positions Adrian Thorpe has held in his Department. [140304]

  Mr. Vaz
  Mr. Thorpe was a desk officer in Republic of Ireland Department in 1972. His manuscript note summarised the contents of a large document which looked at several options for containing the violence in Londonderry. It went only to his Head of Department, whose response was that the issues it addressed had been overtaken by events. The document was submitted to the Saville Inquiry by the FCO, and has been passed to the interested parties by the Inquiry. It would be wrong for us to publish, piecemeal and out of context, individual documents submitted to the Inquiry while it is still sitting. Mr. Thorpe joined the FCO in 1965 and has had postings in Beirut, Tokyo, Bonn, Kuala Lumpur and Manila. He is currently Ambassador to Mexico.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advantages Her Majesty's Government are seeking to gain through agreeing to qualified majority voting in certain areas of the Treaty of Nice. [140280]

  Mr. Vaz
  QMV has delivered a range of measures which the UK has backed but would not have secured if others had had a veto, for example in the single market.

  Where more QMV is in the UK's interests, we will back it. But where it is not, we will retain unanimity.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will set out its detailed response to the most recent draft of the proposed Treaty of Nice. [140278]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Presidency published a Progress Report on the Intergovernmental Conference on 3 November. It is a draft composite text setting out drafting changes for most IGC issues (though not the rewieighting of votes, size and structure of the Commission or the allocation of seats in the European Parliament). The Government's position on all IGC issues is set out in the White Paper laid before the House on 15 February, and updated on numerous occasions since then, most recently in its response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's Report on the IGC (which was published as a Command Paper on 27 October). I refer the right hon. Member to these.
  345W

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the creation of the ESDP requires EU treaty revisions. [140088]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government are satisfied that the existing provisions of the Treaty on European Union provide a sufficient legal basis for implementing the arrangements for strengthening the common European security and defence policy as set out in the Presidency reports endorsed by the Helsinki and Feira European Councils, including those currently being developed under the French Presidency.

  Euro Grid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister has lead responsibility for the euro grid; and what is its annual budget. [140282]

  Mr. Vaz
  As Minister for Europe, I am responsible for the European News Grid. There are no specific costs associated with work on the European News Grid, which is compiled as part of normal working practices.

  Government Statements (Europe)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister has lead responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's statements and publicity on European matters. [140277]

  Mr. Vaz
  As the Minister for Europe, I have lead responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's statements and publicity on European matters.

  ASSIST Programme
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training programme; and what changes to the programme are planned. [137177]

  Mr. Vaz
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 November 2000, c. 51 W]: An administrative error led to an omission in my answer of 6 November to my hon. Friend. The correct answer should read as follows:

  The ASSIST programme was established on 1 April 1998 to replace the UK Military Training Assistance Scheme (UKMTAS), with the main purpose of re-focusing support to the Government's priority of promoting respect for human rights and good governance.

  The ASSIST expenditure for 1999–2000 was £8.95 million which was spent in accordance with FCO priorities for engagement with the armed forces and law enforcement agencies in a broad range of countries. All expenditure was compatible with the ASSIST criteria.

  Examples of projects funded from ASSIST include:

  Regional Peace Support Operations training for senior and junior military officers from over 20 African countries;

  Courses for Indian police trainers to promote best practice in ethical dealing with women, victims of violence, and ethnic related incidents;

  346W

  A joint exercise involving British, Jamaican and other Caribbean Defence personnel and elements of the Jamaican police force to enhance peacekeeping skills, promote democratic policing methods and respect for human rights;

  Assistance to reduce stockpiles of ex-Soviet military equipment in Moldova;

  The secondment of a UK police officer to the Royal Nepalese Police Academy to develop the Academy's human rights training programme.

  English Language Training in countries throughout Central and Eastern Europe as well as in Guatemala, Vietnam and Mozambique.

  Following an evaluation of the performance of the ASSIST programme, minor revisions to the criteria have been introduced. The changes continued the process of redirecting expenditure towards a wider range of training and assistance for military, law enforcement agencies and civilian bodies. The need for a strong emphasis on human rights in all ASSIST projects remains.

  These changes:

  allow the funding of some classroom based training equipment within projects;

  allow the specific inclusion of Customs, border guards, prison officers within the range of eligible recipients of ASSIST funded training;

  provide increased flexibility to support the fight against drugs and international crime.

  A copy of the revised ASSIST criteria has been placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Energy and Environment Programmes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he has received from the European Commission concerning staffing levels on EC energy and environment programmes; what percentage of manpower reductions proposed by the EC in its communication entitled "Matching the European Commission activities with its human resources" will affect energy environment programmes; what assessment he has made of the impact of these reductions on the SAVE energy efficiency programme and the ALTENER renewable energy programmes with particular reference to energy advice agencies; and when he expects these manpower reductions to come into effect. [139709]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not been consulted on the question of Commission staffing for the SAVE and ALTENER programmes which do not expire until 2002. Questions concerning the redeployment of staff are a matter for the Commission. In due course I expect the Commission to come forward with new proposals for these programmes for the period post 2002 and would need to be assured that the Commission has the resources to manage any new programmes it proposes.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact a minimum wage of £5.10 would have on closing the gender pay gap. [140216]
  347W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There are insufficient data and too many variables to enable such a calculation to be carried out. The independent Low Pay Commission is monitoring the impact of the national minimum wage on the labour market and the economy and is currently gathering evidence. They will be making recommendations in their next report on any increase to the minimum wage rate, and the gender gap is an issue that they will examine in coming to their conclusions.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the enforcement procedures for the(a) minimum wage and (b) Working Time Directive indicating the number of prosecutions secured to date. [140091]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  (a) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 provides both civil and criminal powers of enforcement. Inland Revenue officers enforce the national minimum wage issuing notices against employers as appropriate and representing workers at employment tribunals where necessary. There have been no criminal prosecutions for underpayment of the national minimum wage. Officers have issued 308 enforcement notices, 41 penalty notices and taken 24 cases to tribunals since April 1999. They have also recovered almost £3 million in back pay for workers. In addition, under the provisions of the 1998 Act, workers are able to take their own cases of underpayment to an employment tribunal or to a civil court.

  (b) The health and safety enforcing authorities (the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and local authorities) enforce the provisions of the Working Time Regulations (WTR), related to working time limits, limits on night-working and health assessments for night-workers. The entitlements to rest and leave are enforced through employment tribunals; 3,408 applications to tribunals were made in the financial year 1999–2000 where the primary complaint related to breach of WTR entitlements.

  Enforcement of the limits is in line with the Health and Safety Commission's Enforcement Policy Statement: that is, proportionate to any risk to health and safety, targeted at those in control, transparent in what is required and consistent in approach. In practice this means that the WTR are enforced in response to complaints. The HSE have handled 416 such complaints and served 13 Improvement Notices. The HSE have not initiated any prosecutions to date. There are currently no central records of local authority enforcement, but at least one case brought by a local authority has led to a prosecution for breach of the provisions on health assessment for night-workers.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation restricting the sale of all fireworks(a) to persons over the age of 16 years and (b) during a limited period of time around 5 November; and if he will make a statement. [140084]

  Dr. Howells
  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit the supply of most fireworks to persons under the age of 18 years. The exceptions to this prohibition are low hazard fireworks, ie caps, cracker snaps, novelty matches, party poppers, serpents and throwdowns, which, under the Explosives Act 1875, can be sold only to persons over the age of 16 years.
  348W
  I have no plans to introduce further legislation to control the period of sale.

  Trawlermen's Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the compensation scheme for former Icelandic waters trawlermen will take into account periods of absence caused by(a) service in the Royal Naval Reserves and (b) studying for mates' and skippers' qualifications. [139817]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Yes.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to claims for Bereavement Allowance by widowers whose wives died before 2 October; and if he will make a statement. [140022]

  Angela Eagle
  Men are not entitled to a benefit payable as a result of bereavement under current legislation. We are replacing the existing Widows Benefits scheme with Bereavement Benefits which will be available equally to men and women from 9 April 2001.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what preparations had been made for the delivery of Winter Fuel Payments on the assumption that the rate of payment would be £150; and what administrative costs arose from the timing of the decision that the rate of payment would be £200. [140305]

  Mr. Rooker
  The system for delivering Winter Fuel Payments is sufficiently flexible to enable changes to the level of the benefit to be readily accommodated. The first of the increased payments went out during week commencing 13 November, the week after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement. Work is on-going to assess the administration costs of the change.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the maximum compensation limit which the Child Support Agency is allowed to pay to clients; and if he will make a statement. [140286]

  Angela Eagle
  In accordance with this Department's policy on compensation and in line with other Departments', the Child Support Agency makes payments to cover financial loss in cases where maladministration has occurred. Each case is considered on its individual merits. In addition to payments for financial loss, consolatory payments may be considered in exceptional circumstances where an official error has adversely affected the life of the client.

  The Child Support Agency has delegated powers to authorise compensation payments up to certain limits. But higher awards, which are not subject to any maximum, can be paid by the Agency with the authority of the Department.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 97W, on Special Advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when departmental or non-departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135253]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, Special Advisers in this Department travelled on official business to the United States of America and Brussels at a total cost of £2,444.64. The cost of these visits was accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W, which for 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the detailed arrangements for claiming the Far East prisoners of war compensation to be published. [139527]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the ex-gratia payment scheme for British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War is a matter for the Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Gordon Hextall. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 22 November 2000:
  I am responding to your question about when the detailed arrangements for claiming the Far East prisoners of war compensation will be published. I should explain that the payments which we are making on the government's behalf are known as ex-gratia payments rather than compensation.
  I am pleased to advise you that the War Pensions Agency has already published information on the arrangements for claiming the ex-gratia payment for people who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War.
  The Agency published a Press release prior to Remembrance weekend to be distributed to the media giving details of entitlement and how to claim. Many BBC local radio stations have, in the past week or so, publicised the scheme on air. In addition, the ex-Service organisations are using their widespread network of contacts to bring the scheme to the attention of those who may benefit. The Agency's War Pensioners' Welfare Service is also distributing information on the scheme to local media and other contacts. Overseas Departments of Veterans' Affairs (e.g. Australia and Canada) have also agreed to circulate information throughout their offices.
  We have also published a claim form and a leaflet giving guidance on the Scheme. Copies of the claim form can be obtained by any of the following methods:
  phoning the War Pensions Agency's Helpline on 0800 1692277
  faxing the War Pensions Agency on 01253 332014
  writing to the War Pensions Agency, Norcross, Blackpool FY5 3WP
  by accessing the website www.dss.gov.uk/wpa/index.htm sending an e-mail to warpensions@gtnet.gov.uk
  contacting the War Pensioners' Welfare Service—the local telephone directory gives the number to call
  Copies of the claim form can also be obtained from The Royal British Legion by writing to: RBL, 48 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5JY or by phoning: Legionline 0845 7725 725
  350W
  There are five categories of person who are entitled to make a claim for this ex-gratia payment. These are:

  (a) surviving former members of HM Armed Forces who were held as Japanese prisoners of war in the Far East during the Second World War;

  (b) surviving former Service personnel who received payments after the Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1951. These were certain members of the then colonial forces, Indian Army and Burmese Armed Forces;

  (c) surviving members of the Merchant Navy who were imprisoned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War. For the purposes of the scheme, a member of the Merchant Navy is a person who has been employed, or engaged as, or for service as, a mariner in a British ship;

  (d) surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War; and

  (e) the surviving widow or widower of a person who would otherwise have been entitled under category a), b), c) or d) above, providing they were still married at the time of death.

  I hope this is helpful, if you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are applied to requests for extradition of British nationals to India in cases where the request concerns an Indian-born British national. [140309]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Extradition Act 1989 contains certain general restrictions on a person's return. But the United Kingdom does not operate a barrier to the extradition of its own nationals.

  Hinduja Family
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) discussions (i) he and (ii) officials from his Department had with and (b) information was received from (A) the Indian police force and (B) other sources concerning investigations being undertaken by the Indian Police into allegations concerning Srichand Hinduja (1) before he decided to grant him citizenship and (2) subsequent to his decision. [140308]

  Mrs. Roche
  No discussions were held with the Indian authorities or other sources before Mr. Hinduja's application was determined. Inquiries were made as to whether any charges had been brought concerning the allegations which had been made against him nearly 10 years earlier. No charges had been brought against Mr. Hinduja at the time of the decision, nor are we aware of any being made subsequently.

  Once citizenship has been granted to an applicant we do not normally make inquiries regarding the individual unless he or she has been convicted of a criminal offence within five years of the grant of citizenship, or if it is alleged that false information was supplied, or relevant information withheld, concerning the application.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans
  351W
  (a) to create a register of volunteers and (b) to require charities to check the register of volunteers before accepting volunteers. [140178]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have provided funding for TimeBank, an initiative which, in partnership with the voluntary sector and the BBC, is designed to promote voluntary activity and inspire people to give time. Volunteers are able to give time by registering with TimeBank by internet, by telephone or by post. TimeBank then uses the database to match people's time to volunteering opportunities in local communities. The Government do not require charities or those seeking to use volunteers to check with the TimeBank database before accepting volunteers.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what response he has made to recent criticism made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons of young offenders institutions; [140275]

  (2) when he was first informed of the conditions at the young offenders institutions criticised by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. [140272]

  Mr. Boateng
  As set out in a protocol between Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Director General of the Prison Service, the Home Secretary receives draft inspection reports in advance of publication. At regular bilateral meetings with Sir David Ramsbotham, both the Home Secretary and myself are kept informed of emerging findings from inspections of individual establishments, including young offenders institutions.

  As far as under-18s in young offenders institutions are concerned, we have transformed the system as it applies to them. This Government recognised that reforms had to be made to the youth justice system, not least to the level and standard of care within the secure estate. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales as a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Home Office. The Board's purpose is to monitor the operation of the youth justice system and to ensure the delivery of the appropriate standard of care.

  The Prison Service's key response to past criticisms of how it has dealt with young people placed within its custody has been to create a new, distinct estate for 15 to 17-year-old boys, comprising juvenile units in young offenders institutions1. This change has enabled us to transform the facilities and regimes for this group of offenders. Overall, £51 million has been invested in this development. For the first time, the vast majority of under-18s will be held in either dedicated under-18 establishments, or in dedicated under-18 living units within other establishments. The new regimes will be based upon providing a "full, purposeful and active day"; rigorous assessment of each individual's health, social, educational and vocational needs; formal and specific planning and provision of education and training to meet these needs; regular reviews of each individual's plans and inter-agency co-operation and support.

  In relation to those aged 18–20 years, we are considering carefully how this group should be treated in custody as part of our proposals to reform sentencing for this age group. The Criminal Justice and Court Services
  352W
  Bill, which will abolish the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution (DYOI), provides an opportunity to look at the regime needs of a wider range of young offenders. We recognise that they do have different needs, and our work on regime provision for young adult offenders, not only the 18–20s, will concentrate on moving them more efficiently from custody to work. We have given a commitment that we will not implement the abolition of the sentence of DYOI until we have prepared a Prison Service Order to prison governors covering young adult offenders. We shall do that in consultation with interested bodies.
  1 Ashfield; Brinsford; Castington; Feltham; Hollesley Bay; Huntercombe; Lancaster Farms; Onley; Portland; Stoke Heath; Thorn Cross; Warrington; and Wetherby.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Chief Inspector of Prisons to prepare a further report in six months' time on the young offenders institutions which have been criticised by him. [140276]

  Mr. Boateng
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) is entitled to inspect any prison establishment in England and Wales at any time. He does this by means of announced and unannounced inspections. Although it is usually the case that he promptly revisits those establishments of which he has been very critical, I consider it appropriate to leave follow-up timescales to HMCIP. It is quite possible that HMCIP would consider a follow-up inspection to be appropriate to a longer or shorter timescale.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to end the bullying by some inmates against others at young offenders institutions recently named by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. [140274]

  Mr. Boateng
  A Prison Service Order to governors on anti-bullying was issued in 1999. The Order set out the Prison Service's commitment to ensure all establishments have an effective strategy to tackle the bullying of prisoners by other prisoners.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons has recently inspected both Brinsford and Chelmsford and the reports will be published shortly. The recommendations within them will be addressed. Action plans in respect of Stoke Heath and Portland have ensured that any anti-bullying strategy is in place and these have been published within the establishment. Additionally at Portland, courses for bullies and victims have been set up.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy for Ministers in his Department to visit on a quarterly basis the young offenders institutions criticised by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. [140273]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is the role of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons regularly to inspect and to report to the Home Secretary on Prison Service establishments, and, in particular, on conditions in those establishments, the treatment and condition of prisoners and other inmates and the facilities available to them, and on any other matters as the Home Secretary may direct.

  It is the policy of Ministers to visit young offenders and other prison establishments whenever they can to see conditions for themselves, and to meet prisoners,

  353W
  staff and voluntary and other agencies which work in prison establishments. Since 1 May 1997, my ministerial colleagues and I have visited 180 establishments, 68 of which were young offenders institutions or held young offenders.

HEALTH

  Tobacco Control
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mandate has been given to those negotiating on behalf of the European Union on the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control; and if he will list the ways in which the objectives differ from those of Her Majesty's Government. [133883]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom Government have agreed with their European Union partners and with the European Commission which are the areas of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control where the Commission has competence to negotiate on behalf of the European Union and which are the responsibility of national Governments. The Commission's negotiating mandate is based on Articles 95 (internal market) and 152 (public health); however, this will be kept under review as the work develops. Where the Commission has competence, we will work with it and with our partners with a view to reaching consensus on a negotiating position.

  Smoking
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the adult population smoked tobacco in each of the last five years. [138824]

  Yvette Cooper
  The latest available data are shown in the table:

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 years and over, by gender—England 1994–98

  Percentage

  Persons

  Men

  Women

  1994

  26

  28

  25

  1996

  28

  28

  27

  1998

  27

  28

  26

  Notes:

  1. Data rounded to the nearest whole figure

  2. Directly comparable information is not available for 1995, 1997 or 1999

  Source:

  ONS Living in Britain: Results from the 1998 General Household Survey

  Health Services (Climate Change)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what strategic measures he is taking to allow for changes in the demand for health services induced by climate change. [137178]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 November 2000,Official Report, columns 469–70W. In addition, the Chief Medical Officer for England commissioned a programme of research into the Health Effects of Climate Change in the United
  354W
  Kingdom, which will help to inform health policy development for the future. A draft report is expected to be published for consultation around the end of this year. I will place a copy in the Library at that time.

  Pregnancy
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent advice he has taken and from whom on the point at which pregnancy can be said to begin. [138891]

  Yvette Cooper
  The accepted legal and medical view is that a pregnancy begins at implantation. This has been the policy of successive Governments and is based on advice given to the Department by the Attorney-General in 1983, about the legal position under the Abortion Act 1967.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has collated on the impact of the morning after pill on the abortion rate; and if he will make a statement. [138892]

  Yvette Cooper
  A study of self-administration of emergency contraception following advance prescribing has been performed by Glasier et al in Edinburgh1. This concluded
  making emergency contraception more easily available … may reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies.

  However, the number of women studied was small and at the present time there are insufficient data to know how availability of emergency contraception might affect outcome measures such as therapeutic abortion rates.

  It should be noted that fluctuations in the abortion rate may be subject to a number of different factors and it is therefore difficult to attribute any changes to one intervention or event.
  1 Glasier A and Baird D: The Effects of Self-Administering Emergency Contraception. The New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 339: No. 11–4.

  Vaccines
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost per child of the MMR vaccine is; and if he will estimate the cost per child if separate vaccinations were given to children for measles, mumps and rubella. [138898]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom is supplied by two manufacturers of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and by one supplier of rubella vaccine. The cost to the Department of purchasing MMR and rubella vaccines is commercially confidential. However, the price of a single dose of MMR vaccine as listed in the British National Formulary is £6.23 for that manufactured by SmithKline Beecham and £10.17 for that manufactured by Aventis Pasteur. The list price for rubella vaccine, manufactured by SmithKline Beecham, is £2.53 per vial.

  Children are recommended to receive two doses of MMR vaccine. Rubella vaccine is recommended for non-immune women. Single antigen measles and mumps vaccines are not licensed in the United Kingdom.
  355W
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the meningitis C vaccine recently introduced in the NHS is the same as the vaccine is authorised for use in the USA. [138837]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to introduce and use the new meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the present MMR vaccine used by the NHS is the same as authorised for use in the USA. [138836]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom is supplied by two manufacturers of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, SmithKline Beecham and Aventis Pasteur. We are advised by the manufacturers that the SmithKline Beecham product is not currently marketed in the United States of America but that the Aventis Pasteur MMR vaccine is. We are also advised that the Aventis Pasteur MMR vaccine marketed in the USA is manufactured and formulated to the same set of specifications as that vaccine used in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which attenuated viruses are used in the creation of the MMR vaccine; and for which diseases. [138895]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are two measles, mumps and rubella vaccines authorised in the United Kingdom. Both contain live attenuated measles, mumps and rubella viruses in the preparation. The combination vaccine is used for active immunisation against these viruses.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children, in each health authority region, have received the MMR vaccination(a) this year and (b) in the last five years. [138897]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information available about the percentage of children receiving measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1999-2000". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0026.htm.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the research commissioned by him on the possible side effects of the meningitis C vaccine most recently introduced in the NHS. [138899]

  Yvette Cooper
  A number of the studies which led to the licensing of the new meningitis C vaccines in the United Kingdom were undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service and funded by the Department. Many of these have already been published in the medical literature and others have been submitted for publication. An up-to-date reference list has been placed in the Library.

  Following a recent review of the safety of the new meningitis C vaccines, a joint Statement from the Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation was released. Copies of this have also been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children of school age have waited over one year beyond the recorded date for their BCG vaccination in each of the last three years. [138989]
  356W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: BCG vaccine has been in limited supply for some time due to severe manufacturing problems encountered by the sole United Kingdom licensed source, Celltech Medeva. As a result, we had no alternative but to request health authorities suspend their routine schools immunisation programme for 10 to 14-year-olds from September 1999. In the meantime, stocks are being used specifically for those at higher risk.

  On 19 July, the Department announced that there is now sufficient supply of vaccine to restart the routine schools programme initially in the London area, where the highest rate of tuberculosis in the country currently occurs. The Department hopes to announce shortly when there will be enough vaccine to restart routine immunisation in the rest of the country.

  Information on the number of children of school age who have waited over one year or beyond for their BCG vaccination is not routinely available.

  Brittle Bone Disease
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funds he plans to make available for research into the effects and causes of osteogenesis imperfecta; [138800]

  (2) what plans he has to promote awareness of osteogenesis imperfecta; [138798]

  (3) what plans he has to meet representatives of the Brittle Bone Society. [138799]

  Yvette Cooper
  Neither the Department nor the Medical Research Council (MRC), which is the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease, are directly commissioning any research projects specifically on osteogenesis imperfecta, at present. However, the MRC is funding research related to osteoarthritis and always welcomes high-quality applications for support into any aspect of human health. These are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  Ministers have not been invited to meet representatives of the Brittle Bone Society but are aware of their work. We value highly the achievements of such societies and their dedication to promoting greater awareness of conditions which are not widely recognised. They provide advice, encouragement and practical help for those unfortunate to be afflicted, and their families, and they support research into the condition's cause and the alleviation of its effects.

  The Department provides grant aid to assist the promotion of a better awareness and appreciation of conditions like Brittle Bone Disease, the most common cause of this condition being osteogenesis imperfecta. This is undertaken through the voluntary group "Contact A Family" which maintains a hard copy and website directory of specific and rare conditions in childhood, including family support networks.

  Stem Cell Research
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning embryonic stem cell research and the development of adult stem cells. [139145]
  357W
  Yvette Cooper
  The issue of stem cell research was comprehensively discussed in the report of the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group—"Stem Cell research: Medical progress with responsibility"—published in August of this year. copies of which are available in the Library.

  The report concluded that research on stem cells from all sources provides the possibility of exciting prospects for future therapies for a range of debilitating diseases including Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal injuries and liver disease. However, a great deal of research will be needed to realise such potential. It is hoped that research with embryonic stem cells will provide the information necessary for the future use of adult cells for treatment.

  We have accepted the recommendations of the report and will introduce Regulations to extend the permitted research purposes under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to allow for research on embryonic stem cells.

  Embryonic Research
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the resolution of the European Parliament (Official Journal CO34, 2/2/1998. p0164) on embryonic research and therapeutic cloning. [139146]

  Yvette Cooper
  We agree with the aim of this Resolution to the extent that human reproductive cloning should be prohibited. This is entirely in accordance with the stated view of the United Kingdom Government. However, we announced in August our intention to bring forward Regulations to extend the purposes for which embryos may be used in research to include research into human diseases and their treatments. This would include embryos created by cell nuclear replacement (therapeutic cloning).

  Resolutions of the European Parliament have no legal status. We are aware that the European Union has no competence to legislate specifically on embryo research and that strong and deeply divided views are held on this issue in Europe.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for research licences the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has refused since 1990. [139486]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has licensed human embryo research since 1 August 1991. Up to March 2000 the HFEA has refused a total of 17 licences.

  Surveys (Social Service Departments)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the surveys, and information sought in each case, sent to social service departments in the last six months. [139043]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: In support of its business objectives to secure high-quality social care and child protection through local authorities and other agencies, the Department collects statistical information on an annual basis from councils with
  358W
  social services responsibilities. Details of the statistical collections are available on the Department of Health internet site at www.doh.gov.uk/public/pss2000ret.htm.

  The Department also collects information in support of performance monitoring of individual council's achievements against national targets. The autumn position statement, issued in September, sought performance and progress information in connection with selected aspects of the Department's national priorities guidance objectives and targets. It forms part of the Department's new performance assessment system for social services introduced this year. The winter census of social services was carried out by the Department's social care regional offices in October, covering all councils with social services responsibilities. It gathered information on changes to the number of residential and nursing home places in council areas over the period October 1999-October 2000: and on council expenditure to support admissions.

  Information that the social services inspectorate requests from individual local authorities to aid the inspection process has not been included.

  Long-term Care
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the change in regulations in paragraph 2.32 of the Government's response to the Royal Commission on long-term care to give councils powers to help people with preserved rights facing eviction will extend to those in nursing homes, as well as in residential care homes. [138648]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The new regulations will apply to some people in nursing homes. Councils will be able to support in their existing residential care or nursing home those people with preserved rights whom they can at present only support in a different home when faced with eviction.

  We hope to introduce the new regulations before the end of the year.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress his Department has made in ensuring equal access to infertility treatment in England; and if he will make a statement; [139931]

  (2) what improvements he plans to make to infertility service provision under the NHS National Plan; and if he will make a statement; [139930]

  (3) when his Department will publish the findings of its survey of health authority infertility provision in England. [139932]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 43W.

  Pre-eclampsia
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on pre-eclampsia and connected syndromes, with particular reference to the incidence of
  359W
  the condition, foetal and maternal mortality, current research programmes and the dissemination of good practice among clinicians. [139530]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: The Department recognises the serious nature of both pre-eclampsia (hypertension of pregnancy) and its rarer complication, eclampsia. Pre-eclampsia can occur in up to 10 per cent. of pregnancies, and its severer condition, eclampsia, complicates 5 per 10,000 pregnancies. Eclampsia currently causes up to six maternal deaths a year in the United Kingdom and up to 140 foetal deaths in England and Wales.

  The Department's Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths investigates all maternal deaths and publishes regular, updated guidelines on the management of eclampsia. It has also funded the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Royal College of Midwives to produce guidelines for the management of antenatal care including the detection and treatment of pre-eclampsia. Apart from these guidelines the RCOG has also issued recent guidelines for the management of eclampsia. The Medical Research Council is funding several studies into the aetiology of this condition. The Department also supports the charity Action on Pre-Eclampsia through a core grant and funding for its project to supply information packs to health professionals and leaflets to pregnant women.

  Autism and Asperger's Syndrome
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to(a) raise public awareness of the existence and symptoms of (i) autism and (ii) Asperger's Syndrome and (b) to improve the United Kingdom's record in diagnosis and assessment. [139174]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: In 1999–2000 the Department gave project grants on autism, including Asperger's Syndrome, to the National Autistic Society and the Institute of Psychiatry. The needs of autistic people who also have a learning disability will be covered by the learning disability strategy which will be published as a White Paper in the early months of next year.

  Part of the explanation for the increasing number of children identified as having an autistic spectrum disorder is improvement in diagnosis by the medical profession. The National Health Service Executive has funded an evaluation of the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders (DISCO) against other new approaches to diagnosis. DISCO was developed at the Medical Research Council Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry and is making a major contribution to the more reliable diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders. Its continuing development is being undertaken by the National Autistic Society.

  We recognise the importance of health, social services and education agencies collaborating to facilitate early identification and effective intervention. Quality Projects, the programme to transform children's services, will continue for a five year period until 2004 with additional resources. From April 2001, services for disabled children will be a priority area and over the following three years £60 million has been earmarked for spending on services for disabled children and their families.

  BSE
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy and effectiveness of controls designed to minimise the risk of BSE infected meat originating in France from entering the British food chain. [140621]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government treat all matters of food and consumer safety with the utmost seriousness. That is why we established the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The preliminary advice received from the agency is that there is no need currently for a ban on French beef. But the agency plans to visit France urgently to ensure that the French Government have in place effective measures to implement their planned action on beef and to ensure that the beef banned in France will not be exported to the United Kingdom. The position will be reconsidered by Ministers following the report from the FSA of its findings in France.

  In addition, the agency is commissioning a risk assessment of French beef. The Government will be pressing for the European Commission to ensure the compulsory labelling of countries of origin of meat, including processed products. All allegations that imported over-30-months-beef is being or has been sold for human consumption are vigorously investigated. The agency will be asking local authorities to step up enforcement action on the 30-months rule in meat processing plants and retailers. The FSA has advised Ministers to consider tightening the 1996 regulations so that they cover certification and beef products and we will be doing that urgently.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Beechwood School/Corby Community College
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects(a) Beechwood School, Slough and (b) Corby Community College to be able to return to a five day teaching week. [134347]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  John Christie, Chief Education Officer for Slough Local Education Authority, confirmed to DfEE officials on 25 October that Beechwood School would return to a full five-day teaching week on Monday 30 October. This has now happened.

  Officials within my Department made it absolutely clear that Corby Community College should return to a full teaching week as soon as possible. DfEE officials from my Department and the Teacher Training Agency have been in close touch with both the school and Northamptonshire LEA to offer urgent practical support for recruiting the additional teaching staff they need. The target date for reverting to a normal week was November 13. The school is now operating normally.

  In each case, officials from my Department have worked with the school and LEA to find urgent solutions to return the school to normal working and to provide pupils with their full learning entitlement.
  361W

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be(a) the total cost of (i) setting up and (ii) running the learning and skills councils and (b) the annual cost of the salaries of the directors; and if he will make a statement. [137002]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Learning and Skills Council on 9 November to set out the Government's remit for the Council for the next three years. He will shortly send a further letter to the Council that will set out details of its budgets for the year 2001–02. This letter will be placed in the Library of the House and I shall answer the hon. Member's question as soon as possible thereafter.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total amount of revenue and capital resources spent by his Department on(a) education action zones, (b) Excellence in Cities, (c) Sure Start and (d) Fresh Start in each of the years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [138850]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The total amount of revenue and capital resources spent by this Department on (a) Education Action Zones, (b) Excellence in Cities (c) Sure Start (d) and Fresh Start in each of the years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000, reflects the fact that these programmes were launched from January 1998 onwards. There was no expenditure on these programmes in 1997–98.

  The table sets out expenditure for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The Fresh Start support programme was announced in March 2000 and there is no expenditure before the current financial year. The table also sets out estimated expenditure for this year.

  £ million

  Programme

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01 estimated

  Education action zones:

  Revenue

  10

  25

  59

  Capital

  0

  0

  0

  Excellence in cities:

  Revenue

  0

  22

  123

  Capital

  0

  1

  44

  New school name

  Former school name

  Phase

  LEA Area

  Date of fresh start

  Firfield Community School

  Blakelaw school

  Secondary

  Newcastle

  September 1998

  Fir Vale School

  Earl Marshal school

  Secondary

  Sheffield

  September 1998

  East Brighton College of Media Arts

  The Marina High School

  Secondary

  Brighton

  September 1999

  Islington Arts and Media

  George Orwell School

  Secondary

  Islington

  September 1999

  Kingswood High School

  Perronet Thompson School

  Secondary

  Kingston Upon Hull

  September 1999

  Telegraph Hill

  Hatcham Wood School

  Secondary

  Lewisham

  September 1999

  Bishopsford Community School

  Watermeads High School

  Secondary

  Merton

  September 1999

  River Leen School

  Alderman Derbyshire School

  Secondary

  Nottingham City

  September 1999

  The King's CE School

  Regis Country

  Secondary

  Wolverhampton

  September 1998

  New College

  New parks Community College

  Secondary

  Leicester City

  September 1999

  Park View Academy

  The Langham

  Secondary

  Haringey

  September 1999

  The Richard Heathcote Community Primary

  Heathcote County School

  Primary

  Staffordshire

  January 2000

  Manor Oak Primary

  Kevington Primary School

  Primary

  Bromley

  January 2000

  Goose Green Primary

  Grove Vale primary

  Primary

  Southwark

  April 2000

  New Christ Church CE VC Primary

  Christ Church CE VC Primary

  Primary

  Reading

  May 2000

  Orion School

  Grahame Park J and I

  Primary

  Barnet

  January 2000

  362W

  £ million

  Programme

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01 estimated

  Sure start:

  Revenue

  0

  4

  108

  Capital

  0

  1

  76

  Fresh start:

  Revenue

  0

  0

  6

  Capital

  0

  0

  15

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress with the Fresh Start Initiative. [139777]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are committed to preventing schools from failing, and turning round those that do as quickly as possible. There are now under 380 schools on special measures compared with 515 in 1998. Over 600 schools have been turned round since 1997. The average turn-round time currently averages 18 months, compared to 25 months in 1997.

  Over 100 schools in special measures have closed, and the pupils been educated elsewhere. Where it proves impossible to turn a school round in a reasonable time, closure should be the preferred option. In exceptional circumstances, where closure is not feasible, the local education authority may consider a Fresh Start, closing the existing school and opening a new school on the same site. This is a difficult course, and should be reserved for the hardest cases. Twenty five schools have been "Fresh Started". All were causing concern and the majority had been on special measures for over two years.

  We have built on the experience of the early Fresh Starts. We are now providing targeted capital and recurrent funding, and professional support. We will not provide funds or support unless the Fresh Start process planned and supported by the local education authority, and there is a strong likelihood of success.

  Fresh Start schools are new and fragile, and there are no quick fixes. They will be treated in the same way as other schools on special measures, including termly monitoring by Ofsted. They need to focus on raising the achievement of their pupils. We expect all Fresh Start secondary schools to achieve the minimum standard of 15 per cent. of pupils achieving five GCSEs at grades A1-C within three years of opening.
  363W

  New school name

  Former school name

  Phase

  LEA Area

  Date of fresh start

  Kings High School

  Kingsleigh

  Secondary

  Bournemouth

  September 2000

  Parkwood High School

  Herries

  Secondary

  Sheffield

  September 2000

  St John and St James

  Rams Episcopal

  Primary

  Hackney

  September 2000

  Westmorland

  Maycroft/Brindale

  Primary

  Stockport

  September 2000

  Paringdon Primary

  Peterswood Junior

  Primary

  Essex

  September 2000

  Water Lane

  Sumners

  Primary

  Essex

  September 2000

  Kings College

  Kings Manor

  Secondary

  Surrey

  September 2000

  Corby Community College

  Queen Elizabeth/Beanfield

  Secondary

  Northamptonshire

  September 2000

  Tividale Community School

  Tividale

  Primary

  Sandwell

  September 2000

  Special Schools (Closures)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many special schools have closed since 1 May 1997. [139295]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: Some 130 special schools have closed since 1 May 1997. This includes at least 11 special schools whose closure was approved before that date. It also includes 15 schools whose closure has been approved but has not yet taken place. Twenty-two of these schools were failing schools.

  The closure of special schools is often part of a larger reorganisation of provision for children with special educational needs, which may consist of the opening of other special schools, or the establishment of special units within mainstream schools. The pupils from a closing special school will transfer to another school which can meet their needs—whether that be another special school, a special unit or appropriately supported in a mainstream school.

  In January there were 93,018 pupils in such schools; in January 2000 there were 91,708, a reduction of 1.4 per cent.

  Since 1 September 1999, proposals for opening, closing or making alterations to schools have been determined by local School Organisation Committees rather than by the Secretary of State. These committees are made up of representatives of the local education authority, local primary, secondary and special schools and others.

  Special Needs Teacher Training
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hours of training PGCE students receive in the teaching of children with special needs. [139296]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: This information is not collected centrally. However, since 1998 in order to secure qualified teacher status (QTS), students must be able to demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs, know where to go to get help in order to give positive and targeted support and are familiar with the requirements of the Code of Practice on identification and assessment of SEN, including requirements with regard to the keeping of pupils' records.

  SEN Statements
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average time over the last 364W
  12 months has been for a child with special educational needs to be statemented from the initiation of the process to the statement being issued. [139297]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The Audit Commission collects information on the production of statements. It is encouraging to note that the Audit Commission's figures show an improvement, with English councils overall preparing 67 per cent. of draft statements within 18 weeks in 1998–99, compared to 54 per cent. in 1997–98 and 48 per cent. in 1996–97.

  A-levels (Teachers)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average A-level points score was of graduates entering the teaching profession in each year since 1990. [139499]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Data for A-level point scores for graduates entering the teaching profession are not collected centrally.

  Figures based on available A-level point scores data for entrants to initial teacher training (ITT) leading to a BEd with qualified teacher status in England are shown in the table.

  Academic year of entry

  Average A-level point score

  1997–98

  14.4

  1998–99

  15.4

  Notes:

  1. Candidates with more than three A-levels are scored for the best three; all candidates with three or fewer A-levels are scored and counted. AS-levels are scored as half an A-level.

  2. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency—data collected for the Initial Teacher Training Performance Profiles.

  The following table presents figures based on A-level point scores data available for applicants accepted onto degrees leading mainly to a BEd with qualified teacher status. The figure for applicants in academic year 2000–01 is not yet available.

  Applicants accepted for entry in academic year

  Average A-level point score

  1994–95

  13.9

  1995–96

  14.1

  1996–97

  14.5

  1997–98

  14.8

  1998–99

  15.2

  1999–2000

  15.2

  365W
  Notes:

  1. For 1994–95, entry figures include physical education courses not leading to a BEd with qualified teacher status.

  2. For 1995–96, entry figures include Sports Science and Leisure and Recreation courses not leading to a BEd with qualified teacher status.

  3. For 1995–96 onwards, figures include combined courses of education with another subject not necessarily leading to a first degree with qualified teacher status.

  4. Candidates with more than three A-levels are scored for the best three; candidates with two or more A-levels are scored; candidates with fewer than two A-levels are excluded. AS-levels are scored as half an A-level.

  5. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, covering degrees offered through UCAS in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

  Reliable data for A-level point scores for postgraduate trainees are not collected centrally. Recruitment to postgraduate ITT courses in England has risen for 2000–01 as compared to 1999–2000, according to figures from the TTA survey of ITT providers. Total postgraduate recruitment for 1999–2000, according to figures from the TTA survey of ITT providers. Total postgraduate recruitment for 1999–2000 was 17,461; for 2000–01, the provisional figure is 19,544. The following table presents the proportion of successful PGCE ITT completers in England and Wales who were awarded a second class honours or more for their first degree for calendar years 1990 to 1999:

  Year

  Percentage awarded 2:2 or higher for 1st degree

  1990

  82.3

  1991

  83.0

  1992

  83.6

  1993

  85.2

  1994

  86.8

  1995

  87.5

  1996

  87.5

  1997

  90.1

  1998

  90.3

  1999

  91.1

  Notes:

  1. The figures exclude those for whom no class of degree is shown in the teachers' record system. These are mainly holders of acceptable graduate equivalent qualifications or non-UK degrees.

  2. The figures exclude Open University and School Centred Initial Teacher Training.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Database of Teacher Records, DfEE.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what services are available offering counselling, advice and protection to children in schools; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of such services. [139658]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are substantially increasing the resources available to schools to offer personal support to children. Learning Mentors have already been introduced in nearly 500 city secondary schools through our Excellence in Cities initiative. As the initiative is extended in the next school year, we are enabling city secondary schools to employ 1,500 Learning Mentors in a total of 1,000 secondary schools. That will mean that one third of all secondary school pupils will be 366W
  covered by the programme. Learning Mentors help young people overcome barriers to learning, both inside and outside school.

  The new Connexions service will operate from April next year. It is a major new advice, guidance and support service for young people aged 13–19. Its aim is to connect and reconnect young people with learning, and help them to make a successful transition to adult life.

  The Children's Fund, announced last week and worth £450 million over three years, will lead the Government's policy on preventing poverty and disadvantage for children and young people. The majority of the Fund will be targeted on preventive work with children (primarily in the 5 to 13 age group) and their families, helping them before they hit crisis. £70 million of the Fund will be distributed directly to local communities through a network of local funds administered by the voluntary sector itself.

  The Government take child protection seriously and have made recommendations to local education authorities and schools about protecting children from abuse. These include that all schools should have a child protection policy; that schools should have a designated member of staff responsible for co-ordinating action within the school and liaising with other agencies; and procedures to be followed if a member of staff is accused of abuse.

  Schools are also encouraged to support the emotional health and well-being of children through the National Health School Standard.

  School Records
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what right of access parents have to school records concerning their child. [139761]

  Jacqui Smith
  Parents of children in maintained schools are entitled to see their child's educational record, free of charge, within 15 school days of making a written request. They are similarly entitled to receive a copy at no greater cost than that of supplying it. In both cases, the Data Protection Act 1998 prevents disclosure of some material—for example, that which would be likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or emotional condition of the pupil or someone else.

  Ofsted Inspectors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of Ofsted school inspections were carried out by inspectors from the local area in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [139769]

  (2) what percentage of Ofsted inspectors are (a) serving teachers and (b) teachers who retired within the last five years. [139772]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for HM Chief Inspector of Schools in England, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to the right hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.
  367W

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to letters to him dated 7 September and 26 June on behalf of Reverend Christopher Harrison, Chairman of the Governors of Fitzherbert Primary School in Fenny Bentley, Ashbourne, Derbyshire. [140169]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have now replied to the hon. Member on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I regret the delay that has occurred in this case.

  Media and Broadcasting Technology
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to support the development of skills in media and broadcasting technology among people of school age. [140181]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Curriculum enables pupils from an early age to develop the skills needed to access and judge information from a variety of sources, including television and the media. There are many opportunities for pupils to develop technological skills, particularly within Information and Communications Technology and Design and Technology.

  With our encouragement, the British Film Institute has worked with a range of partners, including teachers, to produce an excellent guide 'Moving Images in the classroom' for secondary schools. It offers a range of practical activities to develop pupils' skills in many different subjects including, for example, using video and software editing in Music and using a video or ICT to produce a foreign language voice-over for a news item.
  368W
  GCSEs in Media Studies are now taken by some 25,000 pupils each year. Vocational GCSEs will extend these opportunities to greater numbers of young people.

  Teaching Vacancies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to fill teaching vacancies in England; and if he will make a statement. [140287]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As a result of the Government's policies, more teachers are now working in English schools than for a decade. A sample survey undertaken by my Department in September suggested that the national teacher vacancy rate remained below 1 per cent. the same as in January. However, we recognise that there is difficulty in some subjects and in some parts of the country, and that more needs to be done if schools are to be able to recruit all of the staff that they need.

  That is why current plans provide for over £0.5 billion to be spent on teacher recruitment between this year and 2003–04. The £6,000 training salaries for postgraduates and enhanced Golden Hellos for shortage subject teachers announced on 30 March have led to the first rise in the number of people registering for teacher training since 1992–93. 2,000 more teachers have applied this last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also announced funding to more than double the number of employment-based graduate trainees working in schools in 2000–01. In addition to a £4,000 grant to cover training costs, £13,000 in a full year is being paid to schools from 1 September in respect of each of these trainees in order to allow them to be employed as supernumeraries. A special assistance package for teacher recruitment in London was also announced in August.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Fookes, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2000
11.5 a.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 2nd and 13th November be approved [30th and 31st Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have before us today three orders under the Scotland Act. For the convenience of the House, and with its agreement, I propose to cover all three in my speech.
In past debates on Scotland Act orders, mention has been made on a number of occasions that it is desirable to group and consolidate such orders so as to minimise the number of debates and make the best use of the time of the House. That is therefore the explanation for the wide and varied range of subject matter covered in the orders before us today.
Noble Lords who have attended previous debates on orders of this sort will recall comment made on a number of occasions about the level of information made available to this Parliament when considering delegated legislation compared to that available to Members of the Scottish Parliament, which was considered much wider and more useful.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has been particularly exercised about the matter and in a debate on 17th July the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who unfortunately cannot be in their places today, commented on the brevity of the explanatory notes provided. Therefore, I have on this occasion arranged for copies of the executive notes prepared by the Scottish Executive for the assistance of MSPs to be sent to the opposition Front Benches. I hope that that has proved helpful and welcome.
Scotland Office officials have assisted in arranging for copies to be laid in both Libraries. They have also made efforts to improve the usefulness of the explanatory notes attached to the orders, within the existing guidance, which again I hope noble Lords have found helpful.
Finally, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office has made efforts to ensure that the issue is addressed by the parliamentary authorities.
I turn to the first order. The Scotland Act recognised that in some cases it would be appropriate for the Scottish Ministers to be able to exercise executive powers in areas where primary legislation continues to be a matter for this Parliament. Section 63 of the Act provides for various forms of what is known as "executive devolution". In that case, the functions concerned will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers so far as they are exercisable in or as regards Scotland.
I now turn to the content of the order. I should explain that Article 2, together with Schedule 1, sets out the extent to which the functions concerned are to be regarded as affecting Scotland for the purposes of the order. That is a procedure provided for in Section 30(3) of the Scotland Act. Article 3, together with Schedule 2, then sets out the functions to be transferred. Article 4, together with Schedule 3, makes changes to other Acts and orders which are consequential on the transfer of those functions to the Scottish Ministers.
I turn to the actual functions to be transferred. The entries concerning the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 have the effect of transferring certain powers to issue warrants under Sections 5 and 32 of the Act. Those warrants are to authorise the interception of communications by the police and HM Customs or to authorise intrusive surveillance by the Security Service.
In each case, the function of issuing the warrant is transferred to Scottish Ministers where the purpose is to prevent or detect serious crime. Scottish Ministers will therefore issue such warrants for the interception of communications where the person or premises concerned are, or are believed to be, in Scotland at the time the warrant is issued. Similarly, they will issue such warrants for intrusive surveillance by the Security Service on premises or private vehicles which are, or are believed to be, in Scotland at the time the warrant is issued.
Some noble Lords will doubtless recall that similar functions under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 were

1069
transferred to Scottish Ministers in the main executive devolution order last year. The order updates the position in the light of the new Act.
The order also transfers functions to the Scottish Ministers enabling them to give consent to developers to lay certain gas pipelines that begin and end in Scotland. It also gives them powers to approve compulsory purchase orders associated with these pipelines. Pipeline consents are for the most part already devolved, but Transco pipelines and the environmental impact assessment procedures relating to all pipeline developments were not covered. The order will remedy the omission. The order will also transfer powers created by the Utilities Act 2000, when it comes into force, to allow the Scottish Ministers to make orders specifying the level of electricity to be produced from renewable resources in Scotland.
Schedule 12 to the Poisons Rules 1982 allows the Secretary of State to authorise persons to purchase strychnine for the killing of moles and to authorise officers of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to purchase strychnine for the killing of foxes. The order will transfer these functions to the Scottish Ministers and at the same time change references to now obsolete names of departments.
The second order before the House relates to cross-border public authorities. In preparing for devolution it was recognised that some public bodies which operate both in Scotland and beyond would have a remit which included devolved matters in Scotland. Section 88 of the Scotland Act provides the mechanism to designate public bodies as "cross-border public authorities". Designation as a cross-border public authority meant that ministerial functions in relation to the body did not transfer automatically to the Scottish Ministers, as they did for bodies operating wholly in a devolved area. Instead, the default arrangement is that the Scottish Ministers have a right to be consulted on appointments to, or removal from, the body, and on the exercise of any functions in relation to the body which might affect devolved matters. But these default arrangements will not necessarily be suitable for every cross-border public authority, so Section 89 of the Scotland Act allows arrangements to be tailor-made for a particular body. That is what this order does.
The British Waterways Board and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council operate on a Great Britain basis and were specified as cross-border public authorities, as responsibility for inland waterways in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Ministers. The order will modify the British Waterways Act 1975 and the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968 to give the Scottish Ministers, by and large, the same functions with regard to these bodies as those held by UK Ministers. These are set out at some length in Schedules 2 and 3 to the order. The executive note to which I referred earlier provides quite a useful summary list.
There is also an entry concerning the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. That body advises on environmental matters which are the
1070
responsibility of the UK Government and on matters which are devolved. It was specified as a cross-border public authority, so that Scottish Ministers are consulted about the exercise of ministerial functions in relation to the commission as they affect Scotland. The commission customarily sets its own lines of inquiry, but must also inquire into matters referred to it by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State or by one of her Ministers. The order gives Scottish Ministers powers to refer matters to the Royal Commission, into which that body may inquire.
The Fire Services Examination Board administers the statutory examination whereby fire service personnel qualify for promotion across the UK. In the past, a proportion of its expenses were paid by the Scottish Office and now must be met by the Scottish Executive. Power to meet these expenses did not transfer to the Scottish Ministers. The order will provide the statutory authority for those payments to be made from the Scottish Consolidated Fund and further stipulates that reports and accounts are presented to the Scottish Ministers instead of the Secretary of State.
The order also makes arrangements for consultation between the Home Secretary and the Scottish Ministers in relation to the appointment of the chairman and four members of the board and their period of appointment. Consultation on these issues has previously taken place between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State.
The final entry in the order concerns plant varieties. It requires the consent of the Scottish Ministers for certain orders under the Plant Varieties Act 1997 in relation to the Controller of Plant Variety Rights, the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal and the Plant Variety Rights Office.
The third order before the House concerns adjustments to Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. As noble Lords may remember, Schedule 5 forms part of the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and sets out the matters which are reserved for the purposes of the Act. The devolution settlement was always intended to have scope for flexibility. Therefore, Section 30 of the Scotland Act provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 5 can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the approval of both Parliaments. This allows the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence to be adjusted, either by removing existing reservations in whole or in part, by adding new ones, or by updating existing ones.
Under the Postal Services Act 2000 the statutory corporation, the Post Office, is being abolished and its assets and liabilities transferred to a public limited company nominated by the Secretary of State which is wholly owned by the Government. That Act also replaces the Post Office's monopoly with a reserved area. Instead, universal service providers, which are expected to include the new Post Office company and others, may operate in this area of business so long as they have been granted a licence by the Postal Services Commission. That is a new body, established by the

1071
Act, to act as a regulator. The order accordingly amends the reservation of Post Office, posts and postal services at Section C11 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act to include the subject matter of the Postal Services Act 2000.
It also ensures that the Scottish Parliament can legislate in the future to provide financial assistance for the provision of non-postal services provided from public post offices. The amendments do not make any change of policy in relation to the reservation of postal and related services, but merely bring the existing entry up to date, reflecting the changes made by the Postal Services Act.
As far as concerns transport strategies, put simply, this order amends Section E2 and E4 of Schedule 5 to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate to enable the Scottish Ministers to require Scottish public authorities with mixed devolved and reserved functions exercisable only in Scotland to produce joint transport strategies covering the provision of their rail services and air services respectively.
The power in relation to aviation is chiefly of relevance to the Highlands and islands of Scotland. Scottish Ministers would be able to require named local authorities to prepare a joint strategy to, for example, safeguard and develop strategic and lifeline links within the region and to other parts, including particularly matters concerning lifeline air services.
These amendments were requested by Scottish Ministers, who plan to cover these matters in the Transport (Scotland) Bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament The devolved power does not cover cross-border public authorities such as the Scottish Rail Passengers' Committee, or reserved bodies such as the Strategic Rail Authority or the Civil Aviation Authority.
Article 3(2) of the order amends the reservation of rail transport at Section E2 of Schedule 5. The purpose is to enable the Scottish Parliament to transfer to, or allocate among, any new Scottish transport authorities the same rail responsibilities as any other passenger transport executive. It does not confer powers to create new types of passenger transport executive rail functions. These would continue to be determined by this Parliament. Nor does it include a power over cross-border public authorities or reserved bodies such as the Strategic Rail Authority. This fulfils the commitment, usually known as the "McLeish settlement", made during the passage of the Scotland Bill. 'This was to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over the rail responsibilities of Strathclyde Passenger Transport and any similar bodies that may be set up in Scotland in future within the Great Britain framework for railways.
Section C5 of Schedule 5 reserves the control of imports and exports, and Section C8 reserves product standards, in each case with certain exceptions. Pesticides are included in the exceptions to each of these reservations.
The effect of Article 4 of the order is that the exception for pesticides to each of these reservations will now cover other substances, preparations and
1072
organisms which are treated "as if" they were pesticides by virtue of Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. These amendments are necessary to enable Scottish Ministers to make, in their entirety, two sets of proposed regulations—the Control of Pesticides (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and the Plant. Protection Products (Basic Conditions)(Scotland) Regulations 2000.
Article 5 of the order also amends the reservation at Section C8 of Schedule 5 on product standards, safety and liability by extending its scope. In the context of standards, accreditation is the process by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or a person is competent to carry out specific tasks. The sole body recognised by the Government for the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the UK is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. It is particularly important that conformity assessment bodies are accredited by a recognised national accreditation body. Their work can then be recognised by European and other international partners.
Accordingly, the order extends the reservation at Section C8 to accreditation in support of trade carried out under Community law and trade matters related to competition. This recognises that, for UK businesses to gain the best competitive advantage, accreditation must be carried out by the sole recognised national body in line with European and international practice.
I have spent some time running through the content of the three orders. They are, I hope, uncontroversial adjustments at the margins of the devolution settlement but nevertheless necessary and useful ones. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the orders.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 2nd and 13th November be approved [30th and 31st Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale)
11.25 a.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to start my remarks by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for making available the executive note to these three orders, as provided to the Scottish Parliament. On a previous occasion, had remarked about how much more informative were the Scottish notes. This is a small example of good practice spreading southwards.
We have before us today three "type A" orders, the most heavy duty of orders, requiring, of course, the consent of all three Houses of Parliament. Since the Scotland Act team last met, we have been saddened by the death of First Minister Donald Dewar, a friend to us all. We have to reflect on how providence has determined that Scotland must go forward without his hand on the tiller. I am confident that others will he inspired to take on the task ahead.
The transfer of functions order deals with what can probably be called administrative devolution, which is, of course, not new at all. Scottish Ministers are to be involved with the granting of consent to developers

1073
for the laying of gas pipelines and to approve compulsory purchase orders to enable that to happen, if necessary. For some reason, Transco seems to have been left out of the devolution process; that is, until now. Furthermore, environmental assessments will be required for all pipeline consents. This should ensure that pipeline works do not scar the landscape for more than the essential and temporary period.
Scottish Ministers are also to assume powers to put in place "renewables obligations". This gives them the opportunity to be innovative in this very necessary area of research and development into new forms of energy. Although this may be casting a little wider than what is specified in the order, I hope that it will include biodiesel, because that would be a useful non-food crop into which farmers could diversify.
The Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act is coming to Scotland and Scottish Ministers will have the powers to grant warrants for the interception of communications as regards persons and premises, and for the intrusive surveillance of residential premises and private vehicles. These reluctant powers should assist with the detection of crime and the gathering of criminal intelligence.
Finally on this order, it is good to know that Scottish Ministers will be handing out the strychnine. SERAD will continue to use permits for the control of moles and foxes.
The cross-border authorities order takes us into the world of public bodies with so-called mixed functions—either devolved and reserved, in Scotland and elsewhere, or both. The British Waterways Board and the IWAAC will have a new master in Scotland, the Scottish Executive. The DETR will transfer resources to the Scottish Executive for those purposes. Inland waterways have of course been devolved since the Scotland Act was passed. Canals are on the move in Scotland, somewhat belatedly. Ambitious plans for the repair and restoration of navigation on the Forth and Clyde and Union canals are already under way. It is hoped that the Lowland canals will start to make an impact again on the economy of central Scotland. Certainly, as a canoeist and small boater, I look forward to the increased recreational opportunities, but I hope that there might also be some return of commercial traffic.
For the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, there is clarification that Scottish Ministers can refer matters to the Royal Commission. For the Fire Services Education Board, there is clarification that the Scottish Executive will make a proportionate contribution to the board's funding, as well as recommending appointments to the board.
Lastly on this order, Scottish Ministers are given the right to give their consent to the regulation-making powers of the three bodies responsible for plant varieties and seeds. That is very appropriate given the large volume of plant research undertaken in Scotland.
Finally, we revisit our old friend Schedule 5, the list of powers reserved to Westminster. There is clarification that the Scottish Parliament can fund the
1074
non-postal services of the Post Office, or whatever name we shall be using for the Post Office after the implementation of the Postal Services Act. Given the pivotal nature of postal premises in all communities—urban, rural and remote—there are considerable opportunities for creativity in information, transport and for the reduction of non-domestic rates.
Scottish Ministers will gain the power to require Scottish public authorities to produce joint transport strategies for rail and air services, both largely reserved matters. As it has been announced that my home town of Alloa is shortly to be reconnected into the passenger rail network, I can certainly see the advantage of a strategic approach to Scottish regional transport planning. To further this, the Scottish Parliament will be able to confer PTE-style functions on joint transport authorities; presumably the Lothians and Fife area is ripe for such a new strategic status.
The mixed bag of measures in the order clarifies the devolution of pesticides and reserves the accreditation of product standards. This latter is an essential part of the control of the single British market and its interface with the EU.
These three orders will place more work before Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. I instinctively approve of measures which have a positively devolutionary flavour.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter for me. My understanding is that strychnine for poisoning foxes is, at the moment, illegal. Is the Minister saying that the power to make it legal or illegal is now being transferred to the Scottish Minister?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her excellent presentation of these orders. We see them as tidying-up measures and warmly welcome them.
Can the Minister confirm that in future, whenever reserved powers are under consideration because of the evolving situation, they will be kept closely under review and, should any conflicts arise, that further tidying up measures will be brought forward to deal with them?
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making arrangements for the executive notes to be available to us. They have been very helpful and have certainly made it easier for us to understand these orders.
The noble Baroness will perhaps be aware that I am not a great admirer of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which seems to be worming its way into many aspects of our legislation.
I have one question and one observation. My question is this. At Article 4(3)(a) of the transfer of functions order, the phrase "preventing disorder" is used in defining the scope of the Wireless Telegraphy

1075
Act 1949. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this is consistent with, and not in any way in addition to, the scope?
As to my observation, your Lordships will be aware that there are serious concerns about the legality of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which is currently under investigation by the European Commission as being in breach not only of directives but of treaties. I merely observe that, in the event that it is ruled illegal, the process of unpicking it will now reach to Scotland as a result of that order. I trust that the Government are comfortable with that prospect.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to the questions of my noble friends. Notwithstanding my own quibbles, I noted the observation of the noble Baroness that these orders are,
"uncontroversial adjustments at the margins".
We on these Benches accept that assessment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank noble Lords opposite for welcoming the distribution of the executive notes. If this practice is as helpful as I had hoped it would be—and, from the reactions of noble Lords, it seems that it is—we shall try to continue it and make sure that notes are available to noble Lords on the Front Benches; it is to be hoped that they will then make them available to Back-Benchers who have an interest in the subjects under discussion.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for welcoming the orders. He asked me one or two specific questions. As to whether the renewables obligation will include biodiesel, the content of the renewables obligation is a matter for Scottish Ministers. It concerns electricity production and the issue of biodiesel may be less relevant. The noble Earl was good enough to say that his question about biodiesel was far outside the subject of renewables. The order is about renewables and does not include biodiesel, but, of course, if Scottish Ministers wish to consider it, they will no doubt do so.
I was happy for the noble Earl—and, indeed, for the people of Alloa—to hear what sounds like good news about their future transport arrangements. In general, I am happy that he welcomed the three orders. Like him, share a positive approach towards devolution. The whole point about devolution is that, wherever possible, power should go to the devolved structures. That is what subsidiarity, efficiency and so on are all about.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked about: strychnine. This order will executively devolve the authorisation to purchase strychnine. If authorised, of course, it would not be illegal. However, as I hope I made clear, so far as it concerns foxes, strychnine is very much a question of rabies control. That is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the necessary means of control must be available to Scottish Ministers. That is why the ability to authorise the sale of strychnine for moles and foxes is being devolved to Scottish Ministers. I hope that that answers the point.
1076
The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, spoke about reserved powers. I am grateful to him for what he said about these orders. We all appreciate—no one more so than the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and one or two other noble Lords who are Members of this House and very much part of the process of the Scottish Parliament—that, as both Parliaments progress, we are very much in a learning process of how to deal most efficiently with adjusting the interface. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it seems to be going along remarkably well from both points of view.
I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, accepted our assurance that these are amendments and adjustments which have proved necessary through experience as we go along the path of learning. As to his specific question of whether the orders are consistent with all the points he made, the answer is yes, they are completely consistent.
I think and hope that I have dealt with all the points raised. I shall, of course, be happy to write to any noble Lord who feels that I have not. On the assumption that your Lordships are now content with the orders, I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Joint Claims: Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2000
11.39 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we also debate the second Motion standing in my name. I shall therefore speak to that second Motion during the course of this speech.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the con text of the jobseeker's allowance regulations. Provisions for joint claims for jobseeker's allowance are contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Joint claims for jobseeker's allowance will apply to couples without dependent children where at least one member of the couple was born after 19th March 1976. Both members of the couple will be required to meet jobseeker's allowance conditions and to be available for and actively seeking work. Each will receive help to obtain work and will be directed to training programmes or New Deal assistance as appropriate.
Joint claims for jobseeker's allowance will involve both partners directly in the labour market, preventing them adjusting to benefit dependency at an early age when they are in a position to find and take work. The House had an opportunity to debate these provisions during the passage of the Bill last year and that went through unopposed.
Our aim is to ensure that joint claimants of jobseeker's allowance will be treated, as far as possible, in the same way as single claimants are treated currently. The changes introduced by the regulations will give joint claimants the same favourable rights as single claimants regarding the labour market conditions for receiving jobseeker's allowance. They provide that joint claimants are treated as available for and actively seeking employment for the short periods of temporary absence from Great Britain as described. If the regulations were not approved, we should penalise joint claimants. If approved, the regulations will come into force on 19th March 2001, when joint claims for jobseeker's allowance will be introduced.
I turn now to the Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 2000. These relate to the New Deal 25 plus pilots. These pilots are part of our efforts to tackle long-term unemployment. They have been operating in 28 areas of Great Britain since November 1998, and are testing a variety of innovative ways of helping unemployed people into work. The majority are aimed at those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more; the rest are aimed at those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. The participants in these pilots face a variety of barriers to work, including lack of recent work experience, lack of relevant skills and lack of confidence. The pilots provide individually-tailored help which identifies and then addresses these barriers.
I am pleased to be able to report that the pilots are proving to be a success. They have confirmed that the New Deal model of a "gateway", and a period of intensive full-time help works—over 16,000 people have already been helped into work. Independent research on the New Deal for young people has shown that, as a direct result of the programme, unemployment is lower and employment is higher. The research also suggests that the programme substantially pays for itself.
The results from the pilot schemes are also encouraging. Independent research has found early pilot effects of higher movement into jobs and out of unemployment. This confirms our own analysis, which suggests that the proportion of people leaving for work is 50 per cent higher in the pilots targeted at people unemployed for 18 months or more than in the control areas outside the pilots.
On the basis of this evidence, we have already announced that an enhanced scheme, New Deal 25 plus, will be introduced across the country in April 2001. The new programme is being designed to reflect the lessons from the pilots—we are retaining flexibility; ensuring that a range of help is always available; and investing more in advisers to enable them to provide continued effective support.
The pilots continue to be a useful source of evidence about how such a programme should operate; we therefore want them to continue until the new programme is introduced. The regulations before the House renew the pilot powers which already exist and which, under the provisions of the Jobseekers Act, can
1078
only be in force for 12 months at a time. They enable the pilot schemes to continue to take people in until the end of March 2001, after which the new national programme will be introduced.
The regulations prescribe the categories of people who will be required to participate in the New Deal pilots and the impact on their benefit of not participating, and they ensure that payments that they may receive as part of the pilot, including self-employed earnings, will not affect their benefit. The only substantive change is that the regulations now define the date on which the last participant will join. Technical changes reflect the introduction of joint claims, and the fact that some people will be entering the pilots for a second time.
In summary, the pilots have proved successful. They have provided us with valuable evidence to inform the development of a new national programme aimed at helping long-term unemployed adults into work. The regulations ensure that the pilots can continue until the national programme is introduced.
I hope that my explanation of the contents and import of the two sets of regulations has helped the House. They underpin important elements of the Government's ambitious and innovative welfare-to-work strategy. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
11.45 a.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords. I understand that this is the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has played a substantive role on the Front Bench. I should like to congratulate him on his appointment and give him all good wishes for his future on the Front Bench.
We are entirely happy with the first set of regulations—with one exception; namely, footnote (e), where the reference to the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 is given as "S.I. 1998/207", which caused me considerable difficulty when attempting to call up the regulations on my computer!
We are somewhat less happy with some aspects of the second set of regulations, relating to the New Deal pilot schemes. Last year, when the equivalent provisions were moved, which will expire on 28th November, my noble friend Lord Russell moved an amendment to the Motion for their approval. It called for an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government to include a study of the outcomes for those deprived of benefit under Regulation 6, which imposes deprivation of benefit on those who fail to complete their programmes under the pilots. My noble friend asked for the study to include information as to the means of support relied on by such people and the proportion of those who, six months later, were employed, unemployed, in hospital or in prison, and how those outcomes compared with those whose rights were not taken away from them under

1079
Regulation 6. In response, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who moved the equivalent regulations last year, said:
"The evaluation strategy which we already have in place for the New Deal, including the pilot schemes, will enable us to explore what happens to those who have been subject to benefit sanctions, through both surveys and one-to-one interviews. I hope that that provides the noble Earl with some reassurance. The evaluation will be able to examine all the comparisons he suggests. If the noble Earl would find it useful, I should be happy to write to him giving further precise details of our evaluation plans".—[Official Report, 29/10/99: col. 546.]
My noble friend accepted the offer to be supplied with this further information; and, indeed, some information was sent to him. However, that information was virtually useless and, he tells me, did not answer his questions.
I refer the Minister to Hansard of 22nd May on the debate on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. That legislation raised a similar issue concerning those people who had been deprived of benefit for failing to comply with a community order. My noble friend explained why that information was useless as regards answering the questions that he had asked.
This is vital information. In some cases, no doubt, a jobseeker's failure to participate in an employment programme will have been due to the fact that he was already employed in the black economy and was making a fraudulent claim for jobseeker's allowance. But in other cases the failure will be due to the fact that the jobseeker is an inadequate or badly-organised individual who cannot help himself or someone who drops out of the programme because of bullying, racism or stress. We need to know how many of these cases were fraudulent, how many were unfortunate and what the effect is on the latter. I hope that the Minister can assure us that more and better research will be carried out on the issue. We have not tabled an amendment to the Motion on this occasion but we are still looking for the answers.
There are some other questions that need to be raised. The Minister said that the pilot schemes had proved to be a success, but we should like to know when we shall actually get a full statistical report on the impact of the schemes so that we can form our own views on whether or not they have been a success. In the first year of the pilot schemes there was an enormous underspend. I should like to know whether there has been an underspend for this year; and, if so, what it has been.
There are other wider issues of concern relating to the New Deal programme which I should like to mention briefly. In particular, there is the question of how many under-25s go into full-time education and training and how many leave before completion of such courses. The figures for 1999 were horrifying. Can the Minister tell us whether the figures for 2000 are any better? I do not expect him to answer that question on his feet because I recognise that it is outside the direct impact of the regulations. However, we should very much welcome an indication of the actual figures in so far as they are provisional, and perhaps the Minister can tell us when we can expect to
1080
receive final figures. The figures for 1999 for the FTET programme were so horrifying as to raise a question whether this was a sensible use of public money or whether the whole of that programme should be scrapped. We are anxious to know whether the outcome in the year 2000 has been significantly better.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. I should like to welcome him to his new role. I hope that he enjoys it very much but not for too long on the Government Front Bench; just on the Front Bench of his party. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the clear way that he introduced these two regulations and for the fact that they were introduced together. That makes the process much simpler and, I believe, much quicker. In return I should like to assure noble Lords that I shall be as brief as possible because these regulations were examined in much detail in Standing Committee in the other place. I know that many probing questions were put by my honourable friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West.
The New Deal pilot regulations are of greater substance. Therefore, despite the fact that the Minister dealt with them the other way round, I should prefer to deal first with them. The concept of changing the old unemployment allowance—the dole—to the higher-sounding "jobseeker's allowance" is paved with very good intentions. However, what it really did, apart from changing the name, was to introduce more stringent conditions on the claimant for unemployment pay. In some parts of America they have what they call workfare—in other words, "Take such and such a job or you'll lose your benefit". We certainly agree with the objective of the introduction of stricter qualifications for the receipt of unemployment pay, to use a neutral term. That is why, when in government, we introduced the Jobseekers Act 1995, against, as I am sure the Minister will not mind me saying, opposition from the Labour Party at that time.
The Act under which the Government are now making the present regulations is that very Act. The qualifications are essentially that the claimant should be actively undergoing training or seeking work and should be available to do it if suitable work can be found. Indeed, that has always been the case, but what the jobseeker's regulations seek to do is to create a more specific definition of actively seeking work.
On 2nd July 1997, exactly two months into the present Government, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said:
"Staying at home and doing nothing is not an option".
On 5th January 1998, six months on, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"From today there will be no option of simply slaying at home on full benefit doing nothing".
But how much progress has there been in achieving these fine aims?
The Minister with the title that contains a full job description, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, told the committee in

1081
the other place that 16,000 people have been helped back to work. I believe that to be exactly the same number as the Minister gave us today. He also said that it had increased employment and decreased unemployment among young people. But what is the cost? By April, which is the last date for which I have figures, 60,000 people had been through the over-25year-old pilots. The Minister in the other place claimed that 16,000 had found jobs lasting more than 13 weeks.
However, according to this month's Labour Trends, 69 per cent of those people would have found jobs anyway or were substitutions for existing workers for whom there was no state subsidy paid to employers. Therefore, on the basis of the Minister's claim of 16,000 going into employment via the New Deal, that is to say that 11,000 would have found jobs in any event. Deducting these from the figure of 16,000, we find, on the basis of the authoritative survey that I have just quoted, that only 4,960 new jobs were created. Of course, that is not a figure to be sneezed at.
The Minster said that the cost involved was £64 million. On the basis of 4,960 jobs, each job would have cost £12,900. The Government may well argue that this is a price well worth paying both in terms of the welfare of the extra people who have found work and the benefit to the Treasury in terms of less benefits paid out and in many cases income tax and national insurance contributions received. But the jobseeker's allowance does not create jobs. What it can do is to create incentives or impose sanctions to ensure that claimants take up any jobs that are out there waiting to be filled. It is here that I believe the Government have failed to live up to the lofty aspirations set out in the two ministerial pronouncements that I quoted earlier.
Indeed, there was a third pronouncement by the Secretary of State only last June, when he said:
"We are determined that under the New Deal, there is no 5th option".
In a written reply to my honourable friend on 6th November, the Minister told him that, of the 60,000 people who had joined the over-25 pilots, 2,222 had been subjected to sanctions that is, 3.7 per cent. The vast majority, 1,750, had been sanctioned for failure to attend. It is reasonable to surmise that a high proportion of those were people who may have already been in employment but who were nevertheless claiming benefit and had been trapped by the scheme. That is a useful spin-off but it does nothing to increase the potential of the scheme to get more people into work. The question is: why have sanctions not been extended nationally? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when they will be and, now that we have had the benefit of the experience of the pilot schemes, what the reason is for the hold-up.
I mention another problem. In the course of the debate in committee in the other place my honourable friend asked what sanctions applied to someone who was removed from a scheme through misconduct. The Minister was unable to answer at first until she received in the course of speaking what she later described as "clarification" from her officials. I am
1082
sure that she used the word "clarification" with a sense of irony. According to her, the answer is to be found by the use of the word "and" at the end of regulation 10(1)(a).
I take a few moments to read a shortened version of that regulation:
"An income-based jobseeker's allowance … shall be payable to a person … even though section 19 of the Act prevents payment … to him if⁁
(a) an allowance would not otherwise be payable because the circumstances in section 19(5)(c) of the Act apply".
That section deals with wilful default. I resume my quotation with the Minister's magic word "and". The regulation further states:
"and he has already participated in that same intensive activity period … for … 13 weeks".
What does all that mean? A claimant can be sanctioned for misconduct unless he has already gone through the same option. In other words, as I understand it, if he has taken a job for 13 weeks, he cannot then be sanctioned if he leaves that job or is dismissed for misconduct and declines to take another. I very much hope that I am wrong, but perhaps the Minister will obtain clarification on that.
As the noble Lord has had a longer time than his colleague to be briefed, will he please tell us in simple terms whether a person who declines to co-operate with the scheme can be protected from any sanctions to any extent in face of the clear and unambiguous wording of Section 19(5) of the Act which states that he shall be sanctioned by the loss of benefit? Can a claimant continue to receive benefit even though his unemployment is due to continuous misconduct? A simple yes or no answer would be sufficient if the Minister is able to obtain one from his officials. If the answer is yes, why are the Government turning the intention of the Act on its head by these regulations?
I must return to the figure of 60,000 persons claimed by the Government to have participated in this programme. It is acknowledged by the department that some people have participated in more than one option of the scheme, for example, they have gone on a training scheme and then have taken a job. Will the Minister confirm that there is no element of double counting here—I should be grateful to hear that—and that the Government are talking about 60,000 different people and are not including x thousands who have gone through a kind of revolving door?
The only substantive change introduced by the two regulations we are discussing is the new regulation dealing with joint claims. The Minister told the committee in the other place that this would affect only a small proportion of partners and is technical in nature. I believe that the noble Lord said more or less the same thing. I certainly accept therefore that that is the case.
The new pilot regulations are by way of a continuation of the existing scheme and are, we trust, a preparation for the extension of the scheme nationwide. We on this side of the House will keep the effect of those regulations under continuing scrutiny. We trust that the Government, without any prompting

1083
from us, will also keep them under review to ensure that they are genuinely effective in getting people to work, as distinct from providing the Government with another spinning platform.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have a simple question for the Minister. He used the words "Great Britain". I wonder whether that was a slip of the tongue and he meant to say the United Kingdom, or does this legislation not apply in Northern Ireland?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for their kind comments. I am sure that I shall enjoy my new role for as long as I have it. I am aware of the fact that many people have some influence over that, not least the electorate in the not too distant future, although we in this House are not, of course, directly elected. I appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed. I shall certainly enjoy debating these issues with the noble Lords who have spoken today.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am not directly responsible for the website or the computer that malfunctioned in terms of sending information to him. I regret that that occurred. I shall ensure that the department is aware of the fact that he was unable to obtain the information to which he was thoroughly entitled. I hope that we shall do better in that regard in the near future.
The noble Lord referred to evaluation of the schemes. They are, of course, pilot schemes and therefore detailed statistical analysis must obviously be limited. However, we published a report on 9th October. I understand from the noble Lord's remarks that that information was not as full as he would have wished. I think that he will, however, recognise that the evaluation of pilot studies is bound to be more limited than in the case of a full ongoing programme. I hope that the noble Lord has been able to discern from more recent statements that there is justification for the Government's view that the schemes have been successful.
The noble Lord is right to surmise that there is some underspend with regard to the programme. That amounts to £13 million. I notice that a former Chancellor of the Exchequer is present. Therefore I am mindful of the fact that it is important to be as accurate as possible with regard to the department's figures. However, the underspend in this area may be due to falling unemployment and the fact that fewer people are therefore eligible to attend the programme. It may be considered that in those circumstances the underspend is understandable and justified.
The noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State had emphasised that there should be no fifth option. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that people have responsibilities as well as rights and that people who are well and able to work should avail themselves of the opportunities under the programme to prepare themselves more effectively for work.
1084
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to a particular category of people on the scheme who present real difficulty with regard to their consistent availability for work. I think that we all share those sentiments. As regards the long-term unemployed, many factors are involved, some of which need to be remedied in terms of improving their competence. However, some of them may relate to more obvious difficulties such as health and preparation, to which we should pay proper regard. I appreciated the noble Lord's comments on that point. I assure him that in evaluating the success of the schemes and the question of when sanctions should be invoked Ministers will ensure that schemes are designed to be fully sympathetic to difficulties which some people may experience. In those circumstances sanctions would be inappropriate and would not be applied.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested that the figure of 16,000 beneficiaries of the scheme that I mentioned could be computed rather differently by estimating a percentage of people who might have found work anyway. That is a hypothetical judgment. Thanks to the more general success of the Government's economic policies, unemployment has fallen so far that our record is the envy of many other countries. However, the noble Baroness's computations led her to an extraordinarily precise figure of 4,960 people who would not otherwise have found work. That is a little on the low side. I recognise that our interpretation is bound to be open to dispute, but we can state categorically that 16,000 people are in work because of the effective operation of the system.
The noble Baroness and I are united on the general principles behind the order: that staying at home and making no attempt to make oneself available for work is necessarily to be deplored. Precise and effective government action was required to remedy that.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to a slip of the tongue on my part. When I referred only to Great Britain, I was talking about the 28 pilots. There is a similar programme for Northern Ireland. The joint claims regulations are specifically for Great Britain. I am sure that the noble Earl knows that the New Deal scheme has a counterpart in Northern Ireland.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness' comments on the interpretation of the details. I cannot pretend that I came to my new role with an enormous enlightenment on the details of the regulations. I struggled likewise to interpret them accurately and effectively. At least we have that in common. I assure her that sanctions are introduced when an individual has failed to comply with the requirements of the programme. She said that wilful misconduct would render an individual unacceptable to their employer, but that would bring the individual back into the scheme either for an effective presentation for the next position or for a sanction because the terms of the arrangement had been broken. We make no apology for that. We have emphasised all along that the right to benefit must be balanced against the obligation to be available for work and to conduct oneself appropriately when one has a job. I hasten to add that the counterpart to that is that anyone who enters work

1085
under the scheme also enjoys all the rights and protections that we expect all employees to have in relation to the conduct of their employer.
I hope that I have answered all the detailed points that have been raised. I apologise if I have failed in any respect, and I assure your Lordships that I shall reply in detail in writing as soon as possible. On the basis of the debate, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 2000
12.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name of the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England) (No. 2) Scheme
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman, I beg to move that the Farm Waste Grant (NVZs) (England)(No. 2) Scheme 2000 be approved.
I have a strong sense of déjà vu in opening a debate on nitrate vulnerable zones. Ten years ago I served on Sub-Committee D, of the European Union Committee, which produced a report on nitrates in water. That report remains the best and most authoritative analysis of the subject.
The Government's long-standing and ongoing commitment to farmers was demonstrated in our strategy for agriculture, Action Plan for Farming, announced on 30th March, in which we recognised that the grant rate under MAFF's farm waste grant scheme should be increased.
The current grant rate of 25 per cent is available to those farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones—which I shall hereafter refer to as NVZs—who are required to extend or improve their manure handling and storage facilities as a result of the mandatory NVZ action programme. Those measures, designed to reduce nitrate leaching from agricultural land, came into force on 19th December 1998 in the 68 NVZs designated in England and Wales in 1996 under the EU nitrate directive.
Under that directive, farmers are restricted as to the type of, amount and frequency at which manure can be applied to land. That can cause difficulties for farmers who have little or no storage capacity and therefore have to install new facilities.
In recognition of that mandatory capital investment, the scheme focuses assistance on a range of storage facilities for slurry and other manure. Fixed handling and disposal facilities, which form an essential part of farm waste systems, are also eligible for the grant.
Since its introduction in 1996, the take-up of the farm waste grant has been slow. Of the money available for 1996–2000, only £317,000 has been drawn down. That is an average annual spend profile of only 10 per cent. It is likely that the relatively modest grant level of 25 per cent, coupled with the adverse economic climate for farming, has resulted in farmers attempting to make do with their existing facilities and in some cases exporting their surplus farm waste to other holdings.
The proposed expansion of NVZs early next year will make it more difficult for farmers to continue with that method of exporting as the number of farmers subject to the NVZ restrictions increases. Those increases in the area of NVZ boundaries, and thus their eventual size, are still being defined, but it is anticipated that demand will increase dramatically for the grant as restrictions are enforced.
To assist with that forthcoming capital expenditure, the Government have raised the grant available to 40 per cent on eligible expenditure, up to an investment ceiling of £85,000. That is the maximum contribution permitted under EU state aid rules. The Treasury has given approval for the state aid notification, as notified to the Commission on 18th May 2000. As this is a demand-led grant scheme, it is not possible to ascertain accurately the total value of annual claims. However, through estimate profiles £4.5 million has been profiled for each of the next three years, beginning in 2001–02.
The Farm Waste Grant Scheme currently operates in both England and Wales. Following devolution, separate instruments are required in England and Wales, and the new increased grant rate at 40 per cent will be available only in England. The possibility of introducing a similar increase in Wales is under active consideration by the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department.
This scheme represents real assistance for farmers in NVZs and demonstrates the Government's commitment to balancing the needs of an efficient agriculture industry with the need to protect other water sources from pollution. I commend the scheme.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the Government have increased the level of grant available for farmers from 25 to 40 per cent. However, I should like to ask the Minister about some of the difficulties that farmers are still likely to encounter and whether he feels that the designation of the new NVZs will increase the problem for farmers who currently are unable to afford to enter the scheme.
The new NVZs will of course bring a new tranche of farmers into that geographical area. However, the geographical spread of NVZs will also mean that that

1087
option will not be available to farmers who until now have felt unable to invest in the facilities to deal with their waste and have relied on exporting their waste to an area that is not in an NVZ. The weather has also had a bearing on the issue. Flooding and water-logging in many areas—often the same areas that are vulnerable—has meant that farmers have not been able to carry out their normal methods of spreading waste on the land. Therefore, they have been doubly hit.
I gather that the Government are currently undertaking a study into the costs to farmers which have arisen in NVZ areas due to the new areas of designation. I wonder whether the £4.5 million which the Minister said has been set aside is a final figure. If it is, what will happen to the results of the government study? It is quite clear that the costs to farmers of entering the scheme are not small. Although it is difficult to come forward with an average cost, the NFU has suggested that a farmer might well expect to spend between £40,000 and £60,000. That is the NFU's best guess. If farmers must find 60 per cent of that then, frankly, in the current climate it is not surprising that the take-up is as low as 10 per cent. In these past years it will have been difficult to find that amount of capital expenditure.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether MAFF is ensuring that environmental measures are being taken by farmers which may lead to a different way of dealing with this problem rather than expending money on waste facilities? Might those measures also be subject to increased expenditure?Finally, perhaps I may ask what will happen if the £4.5 million which is made available each year is not taken up. The money is intended to deal with problems caused by nitrates. However, if it becomes clear that farmers do not wish to use the grant in that way, what is the possibility of the money being vired over into the over-subscribed Country Stewardship Scheme and Arable Stewardship Scheme, which often deal with the same problem but in a different way that also benefits biodiversity?
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for showing me a copy of his speech concerning this scheme. We on these Benches are grateful that in this case the Government have listened and acted to help our hard-pressed farmers. I am sure that he is right to point to the inadequacy of the previous 25 per cent grant and the fact that very few farmers have taken it up. I am also glad that the Government intend to spread the scheme to Welsh farmers through the Welsh Assembly. I hope that there will no undue delay in implementing that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for taking part in this debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having provided her with
1088
a copy of my speech. I was unable to discover who among the Liberal Democrats was intending to respond to the order.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sure that, as I am known as agriculture spokesman, that should not prove a problem in the future.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I stand duly and properly corrected and I apologise. The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions. Of course, one must remember that the grant aid is being increased to take account as far as possible of the difficulties faced by farmers who are not able to export. It is true that they will have to find 60 per cent of the average cost of between £40,000 and £60,000. As the noble Baroness knows, the grant aid is eligible up to a limit of £85,000.
The take-up of 10 per cent relates to the 25 per cent grant. Therefore, we expect that the increase in the grant aid and the legal requirement on farmers to deal with the waste problem will result in a further take-up. One can see that there has been a substantial increase in the amount allocated; that is, £4.5 million a year compared with £317,000 in total which was taken up in the years 1996 to 2000. I am not sure of the answer to the noble Baroness's ingenious question about viring over money to the Country Stewardship Scheme. Perhaps I may write to her on that point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his acceptance of the order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation on the Free Movement of Persons) Order 2000
12.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order enables the United Kingdom to press ahead with ratification of an agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of people. The agreement is one of seven bilateral agreements between the EU member states and Switzerland which are the culmination of several years of careful negotiation.
The agreements will lead to an approximation between Switzerland and the member states of the EU which will be of benefit to us all. The individual agreements are concerned with air transport, land transport, trade in agricultural products, elimination of technical barriers to trade, public procurement, research in science and technology, and free movement of people.
It is the latter agreement which concerns us today. This agreement is the only one of the seven agreements which requires individual ratification by each member state. The ratification process is necessary because the agreement combines Community and national competence.
The free movement of persons agreement was laid before Parliament as a treaty earlier this month. The draft Order in Council is the next significant step in the process. The order provides for the implementation of the agreement by specifying it as a Community treaty under the European Communities Act 1972.
The United Kingdom hopes to show its commitment to those agreements by early ratification. All seven agreements will come into force simultaneously once ratification of the free movement of persons agreement has been completed in all member states. So far as we know, only Austria and Switzerland are ahead of the United Kingdom in completing their ratification procedures.
Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association—EFTA. It is not a member of the European Economic Area. Switzerland voted against joining the EEA in 1992. Instead, the Swiss have chosen to negotiate a series of bilateral agreements with the EU, including the free movements of persons agreement. That agreement was approved by the Swiss in a referendum earlier in the year.
The free movement of persons agreement will enable nationals of all contracting party countries to benefit from equal rights in relation to free movement in all the other contracting party countries. It extends the benefits of the single market to Switzerland and allows EU member states to benefit from the contribution which Switzerland can make to the single market.
Once the agreement is in force, nationals of contracting party countries and members of their families, regardless of their nationality, will have a right in the territory of all contracting party countries to enter, reside, work, provide services and set up as self-employed persons.
Nationals of each contracting party country will have equal living, employment and working conditions in all the countries concerned. For Swiss nationals, that will enable them to exercise the free movement rights accorded by the agreement in the United Kingdom. That includes the use of the EEA/ EU channel at UK immigration controls.
We are pleased to be taking forward the ratification of this agreement. It will build on the excellent existing bilateral relationship between Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Switzerland is the UK's largest export market and our third largest market outside the EU. Switzerland invests more money in the United Kingdom than any other EU country. Swiss companies employ some 100,000 people in the UK. President Ogi has visited the UK twice this year, furthering these good relations and the Prince of Wales paid a successful official visit to Switzerland earlier this month.
We are keen to ratify the free movement of persons agreement as soon as possible in order to help maintain good relations with our EU partners and Switzerland. I am grateful to the House for its early consideration of this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Video recording of interviews) Order 2000
12.31 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Terrorism Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 20th July 2000, makes provision for police interviews to be video recorded with sound and for the video recording arrangements to be governed by a code of practice.
Your Lordships will be aware that at present interviews with persons held under counter-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland are subject to two distinct forms of electronic recording. Silent video recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects became mandatory on 10th March 1998; the police had been operating the system administratively since 12th January 1998. The operation of the video recording system is regulated by a code of practice. In addition, an audio recording system was introduced on the authority of the Chief Constable from 10th January 1999 and became operable formally from 24th May 1999. This system is also regulated by a code of practice.
The introduction of these additional safeguards has seen a significant reduction in the number of complaints of ill-treatment at the holding centres and has provided impartial and accurate records of interviews which may be relied upon in subsequent criminal proceedings. These have been welcome developments.
However, the Government believe that the effectiveness of the existing systems as safeguards could be further enhanced in a way that is fully consistent with our human rights obligations and provides additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. Therefore video recording with sound will be introduced in Northern Ireland when the Terrorism Act comes into force on 19th February 2001. Separate audio recording will continue.
As your Lordships will know from previous debates on the subject, the Government's aim is to ensure that the treatment of persons charged with terrorist crime in police custody is fair, professional, transparent and accountable. The new video recording system will also

1091
assist the judicial process by providing an additional record of interviews, in the event that a criminal case ensues or there is a complaint of ill-treatment.
For many years the independent commissioners for the holding centres argued the case for video recording with sound. The Government are grateful to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr Bill Norris for their work and their thorough reports; and we are pleased now to be acting to put in place measures which they have long advocated. I am happy to say that the Chief Constable of the RUC fully supports and welcomes this move. This is a major step forward.
A significant range of statutory and administrative safeguards aimed at protecting persons in police custody are already in place; the introduction of sound and vision video recording will add to the safeguards and demonstrates that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the protection of the rights of those held in police custody.
Other safeguards are these: audio recording of interviews; regular visits and examinations by a qualified medical practitioner; the maintenance of detailed custody records; the right to a continuous period of eight hours in any 24 hours free from questioning, travel or any interruptions; breaks for all normal mealtimes; a requirement for continued detention of suspects to be reviewed every 12 hours; the right to legal advice; and the right not to be held incommunicado.
The draft order requires interviews of persons detained under Schedule 7 (port and border controls) or Section 41 (arrest without warrant of a person reasonably suspected of being a terrorist) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which are conducted by a police constable at a police station in Northern Ireland to be video recorded with sound and that the video recording is to be conducted in accordance with a code of practice. The Act provides that the order must be debated first because the power to require sound and vision video recording is optional: an option which we are now exercising. Today, we are concerned with whether sound and vision video is right in principle. If noble Lords pass this order today, the code will be considered through the affirmative resolution procedure at a later stage.
Your Lordships will no doubt want me to say a few words about the code, copies of which are available today for those who wish to read the detail. A code of practice will be made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act. Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 8 requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft code and invite public representation. The publication of the draft code was announced on Monday 6th November. The draft code sets out a range of requirements which must apply when interviews with terrorist suspects are video recorded; it also gives guidance for police officers and others on the application and interpretation of the code. The closing date for comments on the code is 29th December and it will then be laid in both Houses after comments have been considered and any appropriate modifications made.
The Government are taking this step today to bring the new system and draft code of practice into operation on 19th February 2001. The Government take the view that the many benefits of video recording with sound make this a very worthwhile step. I commend the draft order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the reasons for the order and how it will be operated. These provisions are a welcome addition to the repertoire of the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness said, they will do much to eliminate rumour and suspicion about any undue harassment of detainees and help to ensure that due process is observed by interviewing officers.
However, I have a major concern. How secure will those tapes be? It is vital that they be kept under maximum security and destroyed when no longer needed. I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure me on that important question.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we, too, welcome this extension of recording what is said at interviews. Perhaps I may raise one small point. Did I understand the Minister to say that, although the new video equipment will be installed and available for interviews, audio equipment will still be used at the same interview? It seems somewhat over the top to have two recordings at the same time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. My understanding is that it is better to use the audio tape in order to provide a written transcript of the interview than to use the video tape. The noble Lord looks puzzled and I can understand his puzzlement. Should there be any further reason for the use of the audio tape, 1 shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Audio recording is primarily of evidential value, while video recording is meant as a safeguard for the detainee and for the police. Of course, the video could be considered in criminal proceedings if needed, but only if needed, whereas the audio recording would be part of the evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked me about the security of the tapes, which is obviously an extremely important point in the circumstances.
Tapes will be held securely in the same way as other evidence and material which may be used for evidential purposes. If access to a tape is required, the written authority of an officer not below the rank of assistant chief constable must be obtained before that security can be broken.

1093
The draft code of practice, copies of which are available from the Printed Paper Office, provide for the accessing of tapes, security arrangements and a number of other administrative arrangements to ensure the secrecy and integrity of the sound and vision recording system.
There will be opportunities for discussion when the draft code is debated. But I am happy to provide the noble Lord with the assurance he sought. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hedges
12.42 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following their consultation on High hedges: possible solutions.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are nearly at the end of the parliamentary Session and it is therefore appropriate to mark the point we have reached in the resolution of the difficulties caused to so many people by high hedges.
I tabled a Private Member's Bill, the Statutory Nuisances (Hedges in Residential Areas) Bill, at the very beginning of this parliamentary Session and, within days, I had a pleasant surprise—the DETR published its consultation paper entitled High Hedges: Possible Solutions. The closing date for consultation was 31st January 2000. My Bill had its First Reading on 11th January this year so that seemed to be good timing.
It took an inordinately long time to count the number of replies. Only months later were the Government able to tell me that over 3,000 replies had been received. The DETR states,
"to put this in context, our consultations usually generate hundreds rather than thousands of replies".
It was a massive public response from individuals and local authorities.
It was hard to wait for an analysis of those responses and all efforts to get an answer before the Summer Recess failed. On 10th August, the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, appeared on television and was widely reported in the press, announcing that 94 per cent of replies supported new laws to control these hedges. He declared that the Government would legislate on that matter. The DETR press release of that date stated that,
"it has been shown there is overwhelming support for tougher controls. And so we have decided to introduce legislation in England to allow authorities to determine complaints about nuisance garden hedges. The authority would decide whether to require the hedge owner to remedy the problem by, for example, cutting back the hedge".
Press reports were favourable but somewhat sceptical. Perhaps I may quote from a feature article in The Times on 11th August which stated that,
"it is encouraging that Mr Meacher has accepted the logic of this approach. Much less encouraging is his failure to will the means. Now that sensible proposals are in place, swift action is needed. Yet he has promised legislation only when parliamentary time allows and admitted that it might be left to a Private Member's Bill. It could be many years before nuisance hedges get the chop"
On 14th September, I had a meeting in his office with Michael Meacher and I am grateful to him for making the time available to discuss the issue in considerable detail. I was impressed by his genuine interest in the subject and his stated intention of seeing that there is appropriate legislation. The only question which remained unanswered was: when? It is almost harder for people to have the need for a solution acknowledged without seeing the positive progress towards that solution.
That is why I wanted to bring this matter again before your Lordships. We cannot allow high hedges to be forgotten. Since our last discussion of this matter in July, I have received many more letters from those suffering nuisance hedges and each one makes me sympathise more with their plight. The famous case of Michael Jones took 20 years and close to £100,000 to resolve. As the founder of Hedgeline, Michael Jones has done much to help others suffering similar problems.
I have just received a letter from Alan Boulter of Solihull, who won the case brought against his neighbour. Her costs were £11,000 and she was ordered to pay 75 per cent of his costs. All those costs, totalling over £20,000, are being met by the taxpayer, as she was legally aided. That is a poor use of public money and a simple and inexpensive system operated by the local authority would be so much better. Local authorities are accustomed to dealing with planning applications and are regularly assessing the impact of their decisions on different parties. They will be the ideal bodies to deal with the hedge issue.
Some letters tell me that the hedges have been planted with the deliberate intention of reducing the value of the house they border, by causing invasive root damage and loss of light and visual amenity. Some people have lost everything in these cases. In other cases, there has been no evil intent, simply a thoughtlessness or lack of awareness of the impact of trees growing, usually but not always, quickly to great size. Often the planter has long since moved and the trees are just evidence of the lack of any attempt to control them or are too much for the new owner to cope with. While everyone knows leylandii as a menace, they are not the only plantings causing the problem of high hedges. A tree, or row of trees, which might be beautiful in one planting position can be a menace in another.
As your Lordships and indeed the general public are already familiar with the problem, I shall not delay the House on a Friday by going into great detail. I have before me a letter dated 15th November, sent by Chris Mullin to Robert Jackson MP, who had written to him about an Abingdon constituent. A six-page DETR

1095
briefing note was attached and I should like to comment on that. Indeed, I wonder why I have never seen a copy of it.
Under the heading "Frequently Asked Questions" is one question:
"Why are you not acting more quickly?"
The reply was that,
"it will not help anyone if we rush into legislation that proves unworkable and so does not meet people's reasonable expectations".
How could he even imagine he was rushing into anything when the House of Commons Research Paper 99/35 dated 25th March 1999 states:
"The Government has been saying for more than a year that it was considering whether to intervene and if so, in what way".
It is now 18 months since that report and they are still considering. I do not think that anyone has been doing too much rushing.
Another question asks why the Government do not support my Bill, a ready-made vehicle on nuisance hedges. The reason given is that it is not a public health issue, and I take issue with the Minister on that. It is acknowledged in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that noise is a public health issue. In what way is it a public health issue? What effect does noise have? I believe that the answer is that it causes stress, which taken to an extreme could severely damage mental health. I do not believe that noise has a physical effect, and I see the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his place today and he may be able to comment on that. I do not include sudden blast noise or gunshot, which can physically damage eardrums. I refer to anti-social noise of the type covered by the Environmental Protection Act.
The effect of noise above a certain level is to cause stress. My argument is that stress can result from the problem of high hedges, which can cause serious physical illness. I have received letters informing me of sad cases of severe heart problems, asthma and breathing problems all caused by the problem of high hedges. However, the most common damage is due to stress or stress-related illness.
Another question in the brief refers to the cost to local authorities. The answer is vague. I feel strongly that central government support for this system is not desirable. The answer to the question seems to imply that it might be covered in the rate support grant, or whatever is the current terminology equivalent. I do not find that satisfactory. Local authorities should have the right to charge directly for services in this matter, just as they do in planning matters.
My Bill has continued through some of its stages. Your Lordships have given support from all sides of the House, for which I record my thanks. Time has run out for my Bill, but the issue remains of great importance. I urge the Government to legislate in the Session of Parliament beginning on 6th December. People who are hedge victims want action before any more damage is done to their property and their lives.
12.52 p.m
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although my name does not appear on the List of Speakers, I rise to make a brief intervention in the gap. My noble friend. Lady Gardner of Parkes, has always been keen for action to be taken on the problem of high hedges. She states that she has support from all sides of the House, and I am sure she has. However, I should like the Government to know that not everyone is of that view.
It would be a great pity to have more government legislation on matters appertaining to individuals' private homes and livelihoods. We already have hedgerow officers, who tell us what hedges we may or may not remove. We have tree preservation orders. We are told that we must not wear the skin of a mink on our backs although we can wear the skin of a sheep. We are told that we must not dig up primroses and we are to be told that Jack Russells must not chase rabbits. If we are now to have orders stating what height of hedge we may have, I believe that is going too far. My noble friend has shown many examples, and I know feels strongly about this matter, I wanted the Government to know that not everyone follows her in that respect.
12.53 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches, we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for so vigorously pursuing her campaign. We also thank Hedgeline which campaigns and supports the victims—I believe they are victims—of stress and nuisance.
We believe that the delay has been long enough. I shall not rehearse the points ably made by my noble friend Lady Thomas when this issue was last debated in the House. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is correct that an extremely high hedge, very often at the edge of a small garden, or sometimes not even a garden, abutting somebody's window, is indeed a nuisance.
In some ways it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because it is so easy to disagree with him. Any nuisance, be it an extremely loud noise or a smell which is impossible to live with, should be rightly dealt with so that people can live their lives according to the standards we all expect. I am sure that none of us would wish to take a frivolous view of the sort of stress described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
In preparation for this short debate I looked at Hedgeline's website. I have been aware of similar examples both in my own neighbourhood and in the press. However, reading through the website, I found an horrendous catalogue of real distress. Some people have had to spend their entire savings, and others without savings have had to bankrupt themselves, to try to deal with the problem.
We must support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner in asking her questions. What plans do the Government have to introduce their own legislation? I do not expect the Minister to announce what will be in the Queen's Speech. However, she might be able to

1097
tell us whether the Government are minded to deal with the matter themselves or whether she feels that a Private Member's Bill—suitably amended if the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is not correct—would be appropriate.
Two local government Bills have passed through this House. Local authorities already have the mechanisms to deal with nuisance. If we had included what is, in effect, a small additional power, the matter could have been dealt with much more quickly. After all, we inserted into the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill a large section on AONBs. However, I understand that the time to include a provision in the local government Bills has passed. Another Session must not pass without this extremely serious matter being regarded worthy of parliamentary time.
12.56 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is to be congratulated on initiating this debate. Her persistence and drive in this matter deserve the greatest possible success. It is a strange fact that in spite of the mediation and the best efforts of all concerned, so many of these cases result in acrimonious non-agreement.
I have a large leylandii hedge which separates portions of my garden. It needs frequent attention but does its shielding work perfectly, so I readily appreciate this problem. My noble friend Lord Ferrers brought a different aspect to this debate, on the basis that we have too many regulations. I sympathise with him on that point. However, as long as legislation provides for the possibility of action only in the last resort by local authorities for specific cases, we should support it.
It has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Government seem to be dragging their feet on this matter. We have had the consultations and the results are plain. The Government have stated that they will bring forward legislation. As my noble friend, Lady Gardner stated, at the press conference given by Mr Meacher, he was extremely encouraging. I am glad to hear that she had a meeting with him. However, nothing has happened.
I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we cannot expect the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, to say whether such legislation might conceivably be in the Queen's Speech. If she does not do that, I hope that she will give us some idea of the time-frame within which the Government hope to be able to introduce provisions which will do the trick.
I hope that if such legislation is introduced, it will be limited to local authority involvement and, as I said before, that that would be as a last resort. There is not much more I can add to what has been extremely well put by my noble friend for the second or even the third time. There was a Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr Andrew Rowe in another place, which did
1098
not succeed. That shows that there is certainly concern throughout the Palace of Westminster about these problems.
It took the Government two years to issue the consultation document in the first place. The results of that consultation were published earlier this year. In August we were encouraged to hope that something was coming. I hope that the Minister will give us some strong indications that action will now be taken.
1 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for once more stimulating debate on the problems caused by high garden hedges. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton—who I know wanted to be present for this short debate but had a previous engagement elsewhere—have both been persistent in making sure not only that the Government do not lose sight of this issue, but also that the House is kept informed of the latest developments.
From all that has been said prior to today and today, it is clear that noble Lords are aware of the problems. Neighbourhood quarrels about overgrown garden hedges hit the headlines with unrelenting regularity. What we see in the newspapers and on our television screens are often the more extreme cases where the suffering is severe.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that someone with a large garden of their own next door to a neighbour with a large garden, who has a hedge a long distance from the living area, is in a very different situation from an elderly couple living perhaps in a bungalow which receives little daylight who, even in midsummer, have to keep the electric lights burning at all times and where efforts at reasonable resolution of the problem have failed. I understand that he does not want hedge inspectors visiting his garden in order to advise him on what he ought to be doing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, or anyone else.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if the noble Earl were in the position of the couple in the hypothetical case I just gave, he might welcome even me visiting him to help him resolve the problem.
The lives of thousands of people are being made a misery by these problems. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that Hedgeline has done much to highlight the problems. The Government take the problems seriously at the highest level. That is why we published a consultation paper in England and Wales seeking views on possible solutions.
The options considered, as the noble Baroness knows, included voluntary and statutory action. The response was overwhelming. We received over 3,000 replies. To put that into context: the department's consultations usually generate hundreds rather than thousands of replies. As might be expected, there was

1099
a lot of public interest in the matter; 91 per cent of the responses came from members of the public. Local authorities took the time and the opportunity to consult widely in their own localities before responding, and there were striking similarities between the views expressed by local councils and the public.
The vast majority of respondents believed that new laws were the answer to nuisance garden hedge problems. That included 95 per cent of the individual members of the public and 77 per cent of local authorities. As to what form those laws should take, a new complaints system run by local authorities was the clear favourite. That was option four in the consultation paper and was supported by 73 per cent of the public and 67 per cent of local authorities. However, local authorities were more likely to want other measures, such as mediation, to be introduced not instead of, but alongside that legislation.
The consultation showed that there is support for a tougher line to be taken on controls. We take neighbourhood problems seriously so we announced, in the summer, that we would prepare legislation to give local authorities in England powers to determine complaints about problem garden hedges. The National Assembly for Wales also decided that the new legislation should apply to Wales. We are keen to get the legislation in place quickly, but wanted to flesh out and ensure that the new rules would and could be enforced.
Today we are asked by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, to give a commitment that the Bill will be included in the Government's legislative programme for the next Session. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, recognised that I cannot anticipate what might or might not be included in the Queen's Speech next month. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that people are looking for legislation and a resolution of their problems sooner rather than later, and we will do our best to meet that need.
1100
The question was raised as to why we could not use existing legislation. But that legislation is based on Victorian laws. We believe that we need an up-to-date solution to the problem of modern living, not least because of the importance in this case of mediation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, also raised, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, why her own Bill could not be used. The proposal in that Bill would add boundary hedges to the statutory nuisances in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act. We considered that possibility but do not believe it is appropriate to use that legislation in order to resolve this problem in the most effective way.
As ever, we have had an informative debate about problem high hedges. I am grateful for the welcome given today to our commitment to legislate on this issue. We are seized of the urgency and the need to bring that legislation forward in terms of taking action as a result of the consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked why we could not add resolution of this problem to some of the other legislation. At certain stages late in the night I felt that the noble Baroness shared with me and other noble Lords the feeling that that Bill already contained enough material on which to consult. There have also been odd occasions when Her Majesty's Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords commented on the rather large legislative programme going through Parliament before the next Queen's Speech.
Notwithstanding that point, we are seized of the importance of taking action on this matter and I look forward to doing so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to place on record the kindness and consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, gave to this matter throughout every stage.
House adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.

  New Internet Top Level Domains
  New Internet Top Level Domains
  UK Internet Statistics
  UK Internet Statistics
  Trading Online
  Trading Online
  Sheep Scrapie, BSE and vCJD
  Sheep Scrapie, BSE and vCJD
  NMEC: Requests for Funds
  NMEC: Requests for Funds