Sitting of 4 April 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to foot and mouth disease in Wales. [155491]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On Sunday, I visited Anglesey, Snowdonia and Welshpool with the First Minister and the Welsh Minister responsible for agriculture. Yesterday, I accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to the operations centre in Cardiff, and to Monmouthshire, where he met representatives of the farming and tourism industries.
  Miss McIntosh: I welcome that answer. The Secretary of State will be aware of the devastating effect that the outbreak is having in Wales on the farming community and on tourism. Is he aware of the concern that infected animals are being disposed of in areas that are not presently infected? Has he had discussions with the Welsh Minister responsible for agriculture to see what precautions can be taken?
  Mr. Murphy: Yes, I have. This morning, I spoke with the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, Carwyn Jones, who is doing a first-class job. He is conscious, as we all are, of the problems of disposing of sheep and pig carcases in landfill sites. It is important for us to continue to seek solutions to these problems. We believe that we can overcome them by ensuring that the time from reporting a case to slaughter is no more than 24 hours. That is how we can control and eradicate the disease, and dependent on that is the disposal of carcases.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposed large-scale dumping of carcases in a landfill site at Trecatti Dowlals in my constituency? Is he further aware of the long-standing environmental health concerns about that site? Will he confirm that a notice rust be served by the Assembly Secretary before any such dumping can take
  318
  place, and that no such notice has yet been served? In the light of the serious health and environmental concerns that are felt locally, will he convey to the Assembly Secretary the strength of feeling that he should not serve such a notice?
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. His point follows on from the previous question and the significance of the disposal issues. This morning I talked with Carwyn Jones about Trecatti, and he tells me that there are no plans in the Assembly to use that tip for disposal. He agrees that it is for the Assembly to bring forward such an order. I shall certainly put to him the points that my hon. Friend has made, including the proposal of a meeting with the Assembly Minister.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State in future ensure that MPs, National Assembly Members and county council members are informed when a decision is taken at a high level on the location of a disposal site? I refer in particular to the Eppynt site in my constituency. On Friday night, I spent eight hours negotiating with the Agriculture Minister of the National Assembly to meet representatives on that site. The lack of communication with democratically elected people is lamentable. We knew nothing about the decision. That is a disgrace. Will he ensure that, in future, people are properly informed when something of this nature occurs, and that we are not left to pick up the pieces? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Does he agree with me—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the message.
  Mr. Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I have.
  Of course it is important to ensure that democratically elected representatives of the people are informed of these matters, but the priority must be the eradication of the disease and the disposal of carcases after animals have been slaughtered. I understand the difficulties regarding that site, but it is important that we identify and use sites. It is enormously important to ensure that demonstrations are held peacefully. We cannot but abhor the violence that was used at that site over the weekend. People must understand the significance of identifying such sites if we are to stop this terrible disease.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to my constituency yesterday with the First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The farming representatives who attended that meeting were impressed with the Prime Minister's command and concern. However, he heard from some of the farmers that there has been an unreasonable delay in the slaughter of animals on farms that are contiguous with farms where there has been an outbreak. There is particular concern about the Graig farm in Grosmont, where there has been a nine-day delay. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and give me an assurance that everyone will be able to work together to get a solution to this problem as soon as possible?
  Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the meeting that was held in Usk yesterday. It was highly successful, and the Prime Minister was there for an

  319
  hour and a half to two hours talking to representatives from the farming community and the tourism industry, especially from Monmouthshire. I accept the point that my hon. Friend made about contiguous farms. We are aiming for cases to be dealt with on such farms within 48 hours. Clearly, it is more important to ensure that the 24-hour cull is done first, and then the cull on contiguous farms.
  As for my hon. Friend's constituency and local authority area, I am given to understand that an office is to be opened in the next day or two somewhere in the middle of Monmouthshire, to ensure that the co-ordination to which he referred takes place.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Following his welcome visit to Anglesey on Sunday, the Secretary of State will be aware of the enormous concern felt by the tourism industry, whose takings are down by between 80 and 90 per cent. in Anglesey and Snowdonia.
  Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the latest assessment by North Wales Tourism, which estimates that by the end of June the north Wales tourism industry will have lost £100 million? I am aware of the measures that have already been taken, but will the right hon. Gentleman, along with the First Minister, now seriously consider a loan scheme to help tourism operators through their cashflow crisis? If necessary, will he secure funds from the Treasury?
  Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the impact of the disease on rural Wales. It behoves us all to carry on saying that Wales is open for business; but there are particular problems in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's in Anglesey and, indeed, Snowdonia, which I visited not long after my visit to Anglesey.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned small-business loans yesterday, in the Welsh Assembly. I shall give him the same answer as the First Minister's: such a scheme is under consideration, and we appreciate the points that he has made.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism is especially important as we approach Easter, and that we should do all that we can to promote it? My family and I will be seeing the unsurpassed beauty of west Wales at Easter. May I encourage others to visit the Welsh countryside, much of which is unaffected? We need to talk up the countryside, rather than constantly talking it down.
  Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree. I would advise anyone to go to west Wales and see the great delights of that part of the country.
  I remind the House that the public in Wales have been issued guidance on where they can go. They can visit towns, villages, seaside resorts, pubs, restaurants, cafés, shops, markets, churches, museums, art galleries and so on. There are plenty of places to visit in Wales, and we must encourage not just those from England and Scotland but those from other countries to visit them.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State is absolutely right. We must all do what we can to eradicate foot and mouth, which is having appalling consequences for agriculture and tourism in Wales.
  320
  What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with local farmers and representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales, who are concerned about the site at Eppynt? There has been little consultation about the site, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is just a mile away from the Carmarthenshire border. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire are clean areas with no foot and mouth, and people there are very concerned about the possible effect on their farming areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that proper consultation takes place, and that those concerns can be dealt with?
  Mr. Murphy: Of course we must have proper consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that representatives of the Sennybridge community were able to discuss their concerns with both the Prime Minister and the First Minister, but I am sure that he shares my belief that we must eradicate the disease as quickly as possible. That requires proper disposal sites, one of which is at Eppynt.
  Mr. Evans: Tourism has been badly affected by foot and mouth. When will the Government produce an aid package—not a recovery package, but a survival package—for many of the small businesses throughout Wales that have suffered as a result of the crisis?
  Today I spoke to Ashley Price, the owner of Dan-yr-Ogof caves, which have been open since 1912. They are the Welsh tourist board's visitor attraction of the year, and are among the world's best-known show caves. Visitor numbers have collapsed, and layoffs have already occurred. Ashley Price tells me that if no help comes within the next 10 weeks, the ventilators and pumps will be switched off and one of Wales's premier tourist attractions, which is of great historic interest and has survived two world wars, will be lost for ever. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a survival package for the tourism industry will be announced as soon as possible?
  Mr. Murphy: Mr. Price was present at yesterday's meeting in Usk and made those points to the Prime Minister and to the rest of us. We understand that his case is not untypical; there are such cases throughout Wales. In the past couple of days, I have been to Anglesey, Welshpool and Monmouthshire, where people from the tourism industry were making precisely the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He is aware that the National Assembly has announced a substantial package by way of rate relief and other help for rural areas. We are working on other matters, so that we can see how best to help those devastated rural communities.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Given the effect that the foot and mouth crisis is having on Welsh tourism, can my right hon. Friend say what steps the Wales Office is taking to facilitate the reopening of footpaths?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend will know that, yesterday, the Prime Minister met leaders of local authorities in Wales. He made the point to those leaders, who were of all parties, that it is important that, where it is safe to do so—that is the caveat—footpaths should be reopened. In large parts of Wales, it is safe for footpaths to be reopened. My office and the Assembly will work closely with local authorities to ensure that that is done.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on manufacturing competitiveness in Wales. [155492]
  Ms Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about plans to help manufacturing industry in Wales. [155498]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Government are committed to improving manufacturing competitiveness throughout the United Kingdom by helping established industries to modernise and to compete in new global markets, by encouraging enterprise and by creating a stable economic climate.
  Mr. Brady: The Engineering Employers Federation has warned that 150,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next year. Is it not utterly irresponsible for the Government to pile yet more costs on to manufacturing businesses in Wales through the climate change levy?
  Mr. Murphy: Manufacturing productivity, output and exports are all up. The record of the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office contrasts badly with that. On the climate change levy, I have no doubt that it is the right thing to do, ensuring that we balance the way in which we deal with the climate and the environment in general, and the way in which businesses can play a responsible part in that.
  Ms Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem for manufacturing industry in Wales is the threat from low-wage economies, such as those of Hungary and Poland, where wages are at least a sixth of ours? Does he agree that the way ahead for Welsh manufacturing industry is to work closely with universities and institutions to develop cutting-edge technology? Federal Mogul on the Llanishen trading estates in my constituency has done that very thing.
  Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is aware that it is the Government's job to try to manage any change in the economy, and that many high-tech, knowledge-based companies are moving to Wales, bringing many jobs. That is how we must manage the economy in Wales—ensuring that, when jobs go, we replace them with other jobs.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: That may be what the Secretary of State says now, but does he realise that 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since Labour took office? Referring to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, Welsh manufacturing is now so bad that it is at the bottom of the competitiveness league. It is on a par with that of Hungary, so what is the right hon. Gentleman doing? What representations is he making in Cabinet to stem the flow of jobs?
  Mr. Murphy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 17,000 more jobs in Wales since this Government came to office? Hon. Members must understand that that figure is a real one. I represent a manufacturing constituency and I know that, when it loses jobs—for
  322
  example, Corns may decide to shut down part of Llanwern—those jobs are being replaced very quickly by other jobs. On Friday this week, I am opening a factory in my constituency, where a total of 264 new high-tech jobs are being created for my constituents. That has been replicated time and again throughout Wales.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that the reasons given by Corns for closures and redundancies are financial. Will he comment, then, on its decision in the past few days to hand out 1.6 million share options worth £900,000 to four directors, and on the fact that the two former chief executives who were sacked, seemingly for incompetence, have been awarded redundancy payments in excess of £2 million? Can he imagine the anger felt in my community that the people who destroyed the industry are getting big handouts while those who built the industry and made it the most efficient in the world are getting the dole queue?
  Mr. Murphy: I can imagine the feelings of the people in Blaenau Gwent, and Ebbw Vale in particular. I do not want to comment on the individuals, because that is a matter for the company, but it is also a matter for the company that if it goes ahead with its original plans, it will bring all the uncertainties and problems of redundancy to people in areas such as my hon. Friend's, who cannot overcome those problems unless they have alternative employment. It is still the Government's belief that Corus should take a long-term view of the steel industry, ensuring that jobs are kept and the industry continues to flourish.
  Mr. Robert Walter: For some time, Conservative Members have been highlighting the damage being done to the competitiveness of the Welsh economy by the high value of the pound against the euro, by over-regulation, by stealth taxes and by the climate change levy.
  If the thousands of job losses at Corns were not enough, month by month there is a stream of other job losses: 65 to go at Chubb Fire in the Rhondda; 61 at Honeywell in Treforest; 79 at Arkana in Caerphilly; 88 at General Electric in Nantgarw; and the complete closure of Takiron in Bedwas. Mr. John Spencer of Chubb Fire summed it up when he said:
  "In light of increasing globalisation and overseas competition, the company has undertaken an in-depth study of its cost base."
  Farming is in crisis in Wales; tourism is in crisis; and manufacturing is disappearing before our eyes. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No one should be shouting at the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Walter: Are the Government doing anything about this, or are they abdicating responsibility to the National Assembly and the Liberal Democrat leader in Cardiff?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman gave us a list of companies that, unfortunately, have had problems surviving over the past few months. Let me give him a couple of alternatives: Ford in Bridgend, 640 jobs; Conduit in Cardiff, 500 jobs; small businesses in

  323
  Denbighshire, 490 new jobs; Halifax Card Services in Cardiff, 400 new jobs; Toyota in Deeside, 310 new jobs; and so on, and so on, and so on.

  Economy (Deeside)
  Mr. Ben Chapman: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the economy in Deeside. [155493]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson)rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Donohoe, you shout so much it gives me a sore head.
  Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues, including a variety of economic issues affecting Wales.
  Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the economic prospects for the people of Deeside—on both our sides of the river—are better than they have been for many years, not least because of low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment, but also because of major investment coming on stream at, for example, BAE Systems in Broughton and at Toyota? Does he also agree that that would all be put at risk if we were to return to the days of paranoia about Europe; public spending cuts; tax promises made only to be broken; and boom and bust? Those are the policies that characterised the Conservative party's time in government.
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes some valid points. He will be aware that Toyota at Deeside has invested £100 million and created nearly 500 new jobs, and that BAE Systems at Deeside has created hundreds of new jobs—wings are made in Wales and other aircraft parts are made in Europe. That would certainly be affected by Conservative European policies. On both sides of the Dee, unemployment is down, and in my hon. Friend's constituency it has fallen by more than 700 since the general election. The Labour Government are working for Deeside on both sides of the river, and I support his efforts.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on Deeside's economy of the unilateral decision by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to plant GM crops in Flintshire, which is one of three sites in Wales being used for that purpose? What impact will that decision have on Deeside's agriculture and economy? As the local Member and as a Minister, was he informed of the decision? If so, what was his response? What did he tell Assembly Members about the decision? Did he inform hon. Members of the decision?
  Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the sites were chosen on the basis of scientific advice from the scientific committee, SCIMAC—supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops. There have been continuing discussions on those matters with the National
  324
  Assembly and with Government colleagues. For the hon. Gentleman's information, Sealand is not in my constituency.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on Deeside, we need a very substantial steel spine to our manufacturing capability? With the loss of 319 steel jobs, what can the Wales Office do to ensure that redundant steel workers are given jobs at the nearby Airbus factory, where 1,700 new jobs are available? Does he think that the trainers are up to the job of training redundant steel workers to work in aerospace?
  Mr. Hanson: In my right hon. Friend's 31 years in the House, he has been a strong supporter and has battled hard for steel and for aerospace. He will know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has indicated his willingness to approach the European Commission for help and support to re-train steel workers who may face redundancy. He will also know that, following the Labour Government's investment of more than £530 million, there are great and advancing job opportunities in British Aerospace, which I hope many of the steel workers facing potential redundancy will be able to take up in the near future. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I call the House to come to order.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Chris Ruane: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact of the national minimum wage on income levels in Wales. [155495]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have regular discussions with a range of ministerial colleagues on various issues. The national minimum wage has contributed to a reduction in the pay gap between different parts of the United Kingdom. Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, between April 1999 and April 2000, due to the minimum wage, average earnings in Wales increased by 4 per cent., compared with a national average of 2.3 per cent.
  Mr. Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I inform him that my constituents remember the bad old days under the Tories, when my constituents worked for as little as a pound an hour and all the chips they could eat? What measures have been taken to monitor the introduction of the minimum wage in Wales?
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend will be aware that 80,000 people in Wales have benefited from the minimum wage, which, as he knows, will increase to £4.10 from October 2001. Measures are in place to ensure that there is enforcement and that workers receive the minimum wage when companies renege on their responsibilities. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the 80,000 people in Wales who are benefiting from the minimum wage would

  325
  not be doing so had Conservative Members been in office. Neither Conservative Members, the nationalists nor Liberal Democrat Members voted for the minimum wage.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware that there is no minimum wage for farmers and many others who are affected by the foot and mouth crisis? I am sorry to say that that fact, coupled with general stress, may have caused a number of suicides in Wales. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be some type of minimum wage for those who are affected by the foot and mouth crisis? Will he also assure us that he is seriously considering possible support for the emotional well-being and mental health of those affected by the crisis?
  Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we very much sympathise with those people and are concerned about the level of farm incomes, particularly now. He will also know that the Government have invested heavily in support for a farmers helpline. However, it is a bit rich for Liberal Democrat Members to talk about a minimum wage. As I said, neither they, Conservative Members nor the nationalists voted for it in the first place.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding support for the non-livestock sectors of commerce and industry affected by the foot and mouth outbreak in the Conwy constituency. [155496]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the First Minister. In the light of the current position on foot and mouth disease, support for the non-livestock sectors of commerce and industry have of course figured prominently in those discussions. As my hon. Friend knows, on Sunday I visited north Wales with the First Minister, where we met representatives of the tourism industry.
  Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is continuing concern about the limited access to the countryside and crags of north Wales? May I draw his attention to the circumstances of my constituent, Ric Potter? Like many others, he has had to travel to Scotland, where there is greater access. Will my right hon. Friend help us to enable people such as Ric Potter to find work in outdoor pursuits?
  Mr. Murphy: As I told the House about 15 minutes ago, it is important that people understand that Wales is still open for business and that the Welsh countryside is not closed down. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met local authority leaders in Wales yesterday, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do the same. I shall also meet the First Minister to ensure that the point that she has raised is addressed.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Archie Hamilton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Archie Hamilton: As it is apparent that the epidemic of foot and mouth has been caused by the import of meat from abroad, why has no ban been placed on all meat from countries with foot and mouth? Why has the Prime Minister not more seriously restricted the illegal import of meat into this country?
    The Prime Minister: There are strict rules that govern the import of meat. They are set by the European Union, and we abide by them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] They are exactly the same rules that applied when the Conservative party was in power. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that we will consider ensuring that those rules are tightly applied, and more strictly than at present. In addition, the whole issue of ensuring that the meat that comes into this country is disease free will be looked at. However, there are strict rules by which we must abide when changing any of the laws in this area because, of course, we trade with a lot of countries, too.
    Mr. Neil Turner: My constituency is looking forward to being one of the first to have a primary care trust, and £25 million has been invested in a state of the art walk-in facility in Wigan town centre. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the Government are prepared to invest in the NHS, with new matrons, and does not that contrast with 18 years of waffle, cuts and privatisation under the previous Government?
    The Prime Minister: Some 2,000 matrons will be introduced as a result of the proposals made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. That is in addition to the 17,000 extra nurses who have entered the national health service as a result of the investment that this Government have put in. The most important thing is to recognise that there is still a lot more to do in the national health service. That is why the record investment that we have put in place for the next few years has to be maintained, to ensure that we do not return to the policy of cuts and privatisation of the Conservative party.
    Mr. William Hague: A huge effort is being made by people on the ground to overcome the foot and mouth crisis. We all hope that the disease—there are more than 1,000 reported cases as we speak—will soon be brought under control. The Prime Minister will know that the latest Government figures show that the

    327
    backlog of infected animals awaiting slaughter has reached 379,000. How many of those animals have been awaiting slaughter for more than a week?
    The Prime Minister: Those figures include the animals awaiting slaughter, and animals that have been slaughtered but which have not yet been reported as having been slaughtered. Therefore, when both the slaughter and disposal figures come in, one has to recognise that they will be changed in the days ahead.
    Perhaps it would help if I gave the House the very latest figure for the average daily rate of slaughtering. As I say, because the figures are being reported from different parts of the country by vets, soldiers and others, it takes some time to make sure that they are fully up to date. The latest figures show that, for the weekend of 25 March, on average 48,000 animals were slaughtered per day; for the weekend of 18 March the figure was 39,000, and for the weekend of 11 March it was 21,000. The rate is therefore increasing the whole time. The disposal figures will also be changed substantially, because they include animals that have been slaughtered but not yet disposed of.
    Mr. Hague: We understand the difficulties about the figures, but the Government's figures showed that a week ago 280,000 animals were awaiting slaughter. We know that about 150,000 have been slaughtered since Monday night—there may have been additional numbers, as the right hon. Gentleman says—but it seems that tens of thousands of animals designated for slaughter a week ago still have not been slaughtered. Individual cases around the country also suggest that that is so. Is it not the case that until we further speed up the slaughter programme, we will not be able to stop the disease spreading, as it still is, to previously uninfected farms?
    The Prime Minister: We have speeded up the slaughter programme enormously. In the two weeks between 11 March and 25 March, the rate more than doubled.
    Let me give the disposal figures. For the weekend of 11 March, the average daily rate of disposal was 15,000. For the weekend of 18 March, the figure was 26,000, and for the weekend of 25 March, it was 40,000. The rate is increasing the entire time. As an example of how the figures change as fresh information comes in, on 28 March we gave the figure for animals awaiting slaughter as 215,000. The latest figures for that day suggest that the actual number was 167,000. It has been revised downwards substantially as a result of the fresh information that was received. That is the difficulty with citing daily figures. However, the figures for which precise information is available show that the rate of slaughter and disposal has dramatically increased in the past two weeks.
    Mr. Hague: Nevertheless, individual cases remain, and I will write to the Prime Minister about many of them.
    There is, of course, a deep crisis not only in farming but in tourism and rural business, whatever efforts we make—[Interruption.] Labour Members should reflect on the fact that nearly everything that we have proposed so far has had to be done, so it would be advisable for them to listen now. Many rural businesses are having problems, despite our efforts to tell people that there are many places in the
    328
    countryside that they can visit responsibly. Two weeks ago, I proposed introducing an emergency loan scheme to provide urgent help to thousands of rural hotels, shops, tourist attractions, and so on. The Prime Minister said that he would consider that proposal carefully. Two weeks is quite a long time for people laid off from their job or business, with no income. Will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to introduce that scheme, or something like it, before Easter is upon us?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. In fact, I said that it was better to build on the existing small loans guarantee scheme rather than have an entirely new one. In the next couple of days my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will announce details of how that scheme can be expanded and enhanced. That is in addition to the extra help that we are giving on rate relief and the holidays on tax and VAT where discretion can be exercised. However, the most important thing—I have discussed this in detail with representatives of the tourism industry right around the country—is to get business and tourists back into the countryside. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging county councils and local authorities that could reopen a substantial number of attractions and footpaths that do not go anywhere near farmland to do so. Opening up the countryside again and making people understand that that is happening is the best way in which to get tourists' business back into the countryside.
    Mr. Hague: I certainly agree that there are many places in the countryside that people can visit responsibly, although the priority must be to prevent the spread of the disease and eradicate it.
    I accept that the Government have agreed to rate relief in rural areas. However, is the Prime Minister aware that many hard-hit rural businesses in areas such as Staffordshire, which has a large number of foot and mouth cases, do not qualify for that relief because they are in the rural part of what has been designated an urban area? Will he look again at those cases? Should we not be doing other things to help businesses with their cash flow, such as allowing an earlier than usual reassessment of their tax payments and advancing refunds of VAT which would eventually be due to them anyway?
    The Prime Minister: We are already considering that point. Again, let me give the House some facts. The survey by the British Tourist Authority of the United Kingdom's top 15,000 attractions and events shows that 80 per cent. of attractions are open and 91 per cent. of events are going ahead. Very large parts of the countryside in various parts of the country are reopening in the next few days in the run-up to Easter. It is tremendously important, therefore, to send out a clear message that the vast majority of things that people want to do in the countryside can be done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the local authorities—Labour and Conservative—which have the authority to do so to reopen footpaths that do not go through farmland. That is important.
    As for the rest of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in respect of the tourism industry, of course it is important that we do everything that we can

    329
    to help the industry, but the single most important thing that we can do is to encourage business back to the countryside.
    Mr. Hague: Finally on foot and mouth, we agree with the Minister for the Environment that when this whole crisis is finally over, we will unquestionably need a full public inquiry. The inquiry into the 1967 outbreak concluded, among other things, that future Governments should respond immediately to any foot and mouth incident with slaughter on suspicion and on-farm burial within 24 hours rather than burning. Should not the first recommendation of the future inquiry be that Ministers of any party should read the recommendations of the last one?
    The Prime Minister: As for the 1967 outbreak, it may just be worth giving the House the facts again. On average, there were something like 13,000 slaughterings a week during that outbreak. The average now is well over 100,000. So the idea that somehow we have not taken the action necessary is simply wrong. Of course the lessons of that outbreak have been learned, but this is an entirely different type of outbreak, for the reasons that I have given. There was a multiplicity of movements of sheep for two to three weeks before the disease was ever detected and reported. That has inevitably made it harder to deal with. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the work not just of the Army, which has been superb, but of local officials, civil servants, vets and others, who have done a fantastic job in difficult circumstances in defeating the disease.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When drawing up the next manifesto, will the Prime Minister look at the possibility of ensuring that workers in this country are not sacked more easily than those on the continent and elsewhere? Now that Railtrack shares are at an all-time low, we could get it back for a song. When we have had our glorious victory, will my right hon. Friend ask the Army to take overall control of the Tory party and run its leadership cull?
    The Prime Minister: I am tempted just to say yes.
    In respect of information and consultation, of course it is important that our work force have the rights that they deserve. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the fairness at work proposals and, for the first time, the right to trade union representation.
    In respect of Railtrack, I believe that the programme outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is the right way forward. In respect of the Army, I yield to no one in my admiration for it, but some logistical tasks, I fear, are beyond it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have to say that I agree with that thought. May I bring the Prime Minister's attention back to the difficulties of agriculture and the related industries? Council chiefs in Cumbria have been saying on the airwaves at lunchtime today that, in many cases, the bureaucracy and length of time involved in processing the applications for reimbursement, support, consequential loss and so on are such that it might be up to six months before they can see cases through. Too many jobs and
    330
    businesses in tourism and related activities will have been lost by then. Is there anything that the Prime Minister can do to speed the process up?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of compensation for farmers, there are two different issues. There is the compensation for the animals that are actually slaughtered; we are trying to ensure that the payments get through as quickly as possible—hopefully within days, if not weeks. Secondly, in respect of the Intervention Board and animal welfare, there has been a programme vastly bigger than anything previously anticipated. We are looking—now—at how we can speed up applications and get that done quickly.
    In respect of tourism, of course, some of our proposals are in the hands of local authorities themselves—especially in relation to rate relief and so on. I held a meeting with local authorities yesterday. We are happy to look at any proposals they make to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from that system. However, I repeat—as I said to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) a short time ago—that I also hope that local authorities help us in making sure that we give a proper view of what is happening in the countryside.
    Mr. Kennedy: Would the Prime Minister also acknowledge that it is important for the House to send a proper signal to those businesses and those parts of our national community that are so severely affected? Does it send the proper signal for the House of Commons to introduce a Bill today that actually proposes giving financial compensation to potential council candidates when such compensation is not yet readily available to those being so affected by the present crisis? Should not we rethink that aspect of the legislation?
    The Prime Minister: If we were not helping local authorities with additional expenditure, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would put to me the fact that they were having to cut back on services because of extra spending, so I do not agree with him on that.
    On compensation, we are getting it through to people as quickly as we possibly can, but—as I hope he agrees—the single, most important thing for the tourism industry is that we send out the clear message that it is open for business, that the vast bulk of tourist attractions are open and that there is plenty for people to do in the countryside. We need that message to go out—not just from the Government Benches but from the Opposition Benches and local authorities as well.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the media coverage does Britain no favours and that the Opposition should be talking Britain up, not down?
    The Prime Minister: It is important, while recognising the deep seriousness of the situation, that we at least give a proper sense of perspective; for example, even now, the number of slaughtered animals is less than 1 per cent. of the livestock of the country. It may help if I give the House the latest livestock sales in the normal course of business: 91 per cent. of pork sales are back to normal and for beef, the figure is about 78 per cent. Lamb is still down—at 40 per cent. However, that points to the fact that there is an awful lot of normal trade. When I am

    331
    going around the country, I find the desire on the part of both the farming and the tourism industries not only to emphasise the urgent and needy plight of those who are most affected by this disease, but to get the message across that vast parts of the country—still the vast majority—are not affected by foot and mouth disease. There are areas where there have been sporadic cases—as I saw for myself in Essex a short time ago—but over time, in the next few weeks, those areas should be able to move to a different status as the disease is cleared. Obviously, we must bear down in those areas where the disease is most rife. It is important to recognise that a proper sense of perspective is important not only for the tourism industry but for the farming industry.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Ever since the outbreak of foot and mouth, the Prime Minister has repeatedly warned of the devastating effects on the British tourism industry of the postponement of elections. Since the Prime Minister's last-minute panic conversion to the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for elections to be postponed, what estimate has the Prime Minister made of the financial impact on the British tourism industry of that postponement?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether we have just heard a swift policy reversal. The Conservatives should make up their mind as to whether they are saying we were right to delay the elections, or wrong. The truth is that to delay them a short time is—in my view—a perfectly proper balance between the interests of setting up proper mechanisms to deal with the disease and the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—an indefinite delay of the democratic process—which may appeal to the Conservative party but is not in the national interest.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The Prime Minister will be aware, from the letter that I have sent to him, of the murder in Moscow, on 26 September 1999, of Christopher Rees, a British journalist working for an American television company called Story First. Christopher's mother, Mrs. Jane Rees, is a constituent of mine. Will the Prime Minister please raise her son's case with the appropriate Russian authorities to ensure that progress is made in investigating that crime, as Mrs. Rees is concerned that little effort has been made by those authorities to find the culprit and prosecute?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the case of Mr. Rees. I will look into it for my hon. Friend, and I will be in touch with her about how we shall raise it with the Russian authorities in the appropriate way.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does the Prime Minister agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—that the first person who should be advised of his decisions on election dates is Her Majesty the Queen?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am sure that she will be.
    Mr. Bill Michie: In respect of the Kyoto protocol, may I ask my right hon.
    332
    Friend the Prime Minister whether he will impress, as strongly as possible, on the President of the United States that the world is not owned by the United States, but is the property of every living soul on this planet? Will he remind him that the future of this planet does not rest with big business and profit, but with principled planning? Will he also remind him that anyone who has the power that the United States has has equal responsibility to mankind?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend probably knows, this country has made its position clear. We continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best framework to deal with climate change, which is a problem that affects rich and poor countries alike. It is of vital importance to the future of the world that we deal with that and the reduction of CO2 emissions. We obviously want to hear the views and ideas of the new Administration as to how we reduce those emissions, but for our own part, as I have said before, we think that the Kyoto protocol is the right way forward. I have no doubt at all that there will be intensive negotiations on that in the run-up to the next round of talks in July, and I hope that we can find agreement on a way forward.
    Mr. David Prior: Is the Prime Minister aware that some 1.5 million animals, which do not have foot and mouth disease, are awaiting slaughter under the welfare to slaughter scheme and that many of those animals are suffering appalling welfare conditions, with little grazing and no shelter? When will that dreadful backlog be cleared?
    The Prime Minister: That is exactly the point that I was making a moment or two ago. Obviously, the Intervention Board his had to deal with a vastly different range and number of cases than it ever anticipated. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have greatly increased the payments under the animal welfare scheme, so it is far more generous than the scheme in place before, but we are working to ensure that we clear the backlog of applications to the Intervention Board. We will do that as soon as we possibly can, although our first priority must be to ensure that we carry out the containment by slaughter policy.
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the country faces no more serious long-terns problem than the degradation of our environment? Does he agree that the crazed policies coming from the White House are not our only difficulty? More parochially, people do not want an incinerator, a tip, a telecom mast and certainly not floods in their neighbourhood. Does he agree, however, that we cannot control such things unless every single citizen in this country recognises his or her responsibility—for example, to minimise the use of non-renewable fuels and to recycle? Therefore, does he not agree that his next Government must lead a crusade on our environment? After all, as someone once said, if the Labour party is not a crusade, it is nothing.
    The Prime Minister: First, we have now set a target for recycling at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005 and we have set councils statutory targets to double recycling by 2003–04 and to triple it by 2005–06. In addition, we have committed almost £160 million of

    333
    new opportunities fund money for a programme of environmental renewal and community regeneration. I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a vast reservoir of good intention among members of the public to help in that process and, by putting in the lead investment, we hope to be able to mobilise that to improve the situation for the local environment in every part of the country.
    Sir Michael Spicer: When will we have a proper and publicly announced decision on vaccination against foot and mouth?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained to the House about 10 days ago—in fact, I think that it was even before that—vaccination is an option. We have put in place all the contingency planning necessary for it in certain circumstances, but there are also difficulties with vaccination. In the past 10 days, the number of new cases has, at present—we should not read too much into this—flattened out and we have to see whether that trend is maintained. In those circumstances, we continue to have vaccination as an option, but we need and want to see whether the containment by slaughter policy achieves the objectives desired.
    I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman and to other Conservative Members shouting out for vaccination that there is a huge—at the very least—division of opinion within the farming community. The policy will be difficult to put in place unless the fanning community agrees to it. Vaccination remains an option if the containment by slaughter policy does not work, and we are keeping it under review. We have all the contingency planning necessary to implement it, but, at present, we believe that it is right to see the present policy working.
    Ms Linda Perham: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcome the setting up a few weeks ago of a group to advise the Government on age issues in preparation for tackling age discrimination? What other measures do the Government have in place to make a real improvement to the lives of people over 50?
    The Prime Minister: That is an important part of the Government's programme. We set up the age advisory group to advise the Government on the issues in respect of that, but I think that the important thing is that any legislation builds on what are many good practices in different parts of the country. Those need to be brought together so that we are able to ensure that there is an end to age discrimination in employment, which is not just wrong but counter-productive. Vast numbers of—let us say—more elderly people of working age are in the population and they perform an excellent task for their employers. They are often undervalued, and I hope very
    334
    much that my hon. Friend will see in the announcements that we make in the weeks ahead that the very issues that she has raised are properly dealt with.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister remind himself that, before each sitting of the House, prayer is offered to the God of heaven and earth? Would he also remind himself that, in days of crisis in this nation, the one who held his office advised the monarch from time to time to call a national day of prayer? Does he not feel that, in the present crisis, the nation should express its desire to have our nation healed, and that the way to have it healed is to call upon the sovereign God of heaven?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the nation will pray in its own way for what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know whether it is right for Government to impose that, but 1 am sure that, according to their own conscience and faith, people will pray for the objectives that he has set out.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we greatly welcome the massive investment that is going into school buildings and facilities, we also have an enormously dedicated and skilled teaching profession? Will he join me in paying tribute to that profession in the Wirral and elsewhere and welcome the figures published today of a 24 per cent. increase in teacher training applicants since last year?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to give the House the figures on that. There are now more than 5,000 more applicants this year than at the same time last year. Maths applications are up 20 per cent.; science applications are up 36 per cent.; modern language applications are up 17 per cent.; and technology applications are up 89 per cent. In addition, well over 11,000 schools up and down the country have benefited from new deal money. The two things that we can be sure of are that, if the Conservative party were elected, it would scrap the new deal money so that investment would go and that it is opposed to the additional investment in teachers. For both those reasons, I am sure that people in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere would prefer education to be in the charge of this Government.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Now that matron is coming back to sort out the chaos in our hospitals, will the Prime Minister consider bringing back the cane to sort out the chaos in our schools?
    The Prime Minister: I thought at first that we were going to get a job application. As for the hon. Lady's question, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her. However, I am sure that she will agree that the one thing the national health service needs is extra investment, which we will continue to provide.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Prime Minister stretches every sinew to escape, has he or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asked to make a statement on the policy of transporting carcases that might be infected from an area such as Herefordshire to a clean area such as Tern Hill in my constituency?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that every day this week I have had to raise as a point of order my complete inability to persuade the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write to me outlining the circumstances in which a landfill site is being used in my constituency for the burial of carcases. It is difficult to say the same thing in a different way every time, but if Ministers will not answer letters from hon. Members and simply reply to every question that might cause them difficulty with the formula "I will write to the hon. Member", it makes it impossible for us to discharge our function. Do you know of any precedent that sets out when the occupant of the Chair has to intervene in such matters, or do you have to listen to me saying the same thing in a different way every day until Parliament is dissolved?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is not a matter for Chair.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that a decision has been taken that the national census will go ahead on 27 April. Have you received a request from any Minister to tell the House what precautions will be taken to ensure that those taking the census do not spread foot and mouth disease?
Mr. Speaker: I have received nothing from Ministers on that matter.
Mr. Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be in order for me to table amendments to the Elections Bill to ask for all by-elections to be cancelled up to 3 May, including the Carlisle by-election which is due to take place on 19 April and is being fought by the agent of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)?
Mr. Speaker: We have to see the amendment before we can make a decision. It is as simple as that.

Street Works
3.33 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in relation to cable companies and other undertakers of street works.
The Bill sets out to ensure that there is better co-ordination of the work that is carried out by cable companies and utilities. My constituents tell me that it is needed. They find it incredible that one company can dig up a road one week, disrupting an entire area, only to find that two weeks later a different company digs up the road all over again.
Legislation has put in place a number of measures to minimise the disruption caused by such street works. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 provides that operators have to notify highway authorities with a minimum of one month's notice in advance of any major work or work to he carried out on sensitive streets, as defined by the local authority. The problem with the 1991 Act is that although it gives local authorities the duty to co-ordinate excavations of the public highway, they do not have sufficient powers to do so.
Correspondence on the issue with Ministers shows that they are aware of the problems and know that certain communities in the west and south-west have been particularly badly affected by new telecommunications installations. The Labour Government have recently introduced fines of up to £2,000 a day for companies if their road works are overdue, which is welcome, but the Bill seeks to minimise disruption further by ensuring there is proper co-ordination of street works. We expect new regulations later this year, and I hope that they will take on board the proposals in my Bill.
Currently, all local authorities hold quarterly meetings and invite operators to them to discuss a schedule of works. Too often, however, operators do not attend; if they do, they often do not provide accurate information. One authority told me that many companies send it nil returns for meetings, then proceed to send notices for large schemes that should have been on the co-ordination schedule. That has led to understandable frustration among road users in many parts of South Swindon, including parts of the town centre, Freshbrook, Liddington, Wanborough and Wroughton. Those frustrations have been expressed clearly to me by constituents and parish councils covering those and other areas. A classic case occurred last summer, when our local paper, the Evening Advertiser, reported that Manchester road, which houses our bus station and so has significant traffic flow, was dug up by one cable company; when it finished, another company started 10 days later. That cannot be a sensible way of proceeding.
There have been so many companies on the nearby stretch of road between Whale bridge and Fleming way that there is no room left, and there is now an embargo on the road. That raises the question of whether the number of companies, of which there are more than 300 nationally—so far, we have seen only about 20 of them locally— is ultimately sustainable.
There are some examples of good practice. Last July, Swindon borough council held talks with Cable and Wireless and Colt Telecom and an agreement was made that the two companies would share roadworks for their cable laying. But that good example is not common.

337
My Bill would make that good example more of the norm. It would make it a requirement for any company wishing to undertake major roadworks or any work on a sensitive street to attend the quarterly meeting of the authority. The local authority would then have a right to delay roadworks by up to a month or to bring them forward by up to two months to co-ordinate works. The authority could insist that companies share ducts and working arrangements. Colleagues may be concerned that that will delay consumers getting services and I recognise that telecoms companies have to respond quickly to consumer demand. However, with proper planning, there should be no significant delay and consumer demands have to be weighed against the inconvenience, misery to road users and business and social time that are lost as a result of disruption. Recent research by the Transport Research Laboratory has put the cost of roadworks to Britain's economy at more than £2 billion a year, including traffic delays, damage to road surfaces and accidents; the lack of co-ordination is costing the nation huge sums.
I do not want to leave this opportunity without recognising that co-ordination is not the only problem with roadworks; my constituents raise questions with me about the quality of the some roadworks and the safety precautions taken for the staff and public at the works. Better regulations are needed to ensure that local authorities are properly reimbursed for the work that they undertake. At the moment, some council taxpayers subsidise cable companies for their work and that should be corrected.
I hope that all those issues will be addressed in Government guidance and existing regulation, but the greatest frustration of unnecessary misery on the roads could be put right through the measures in my Bill. I want to stress that it is not about increasing regulation, but about changing it. I therefore propose that there should be new sections 60 and 64 in the 1991 Act, and that sections 54, 55 and 56 should be deleted. So five existing clauses would become two and, more importantly, we would achieve a much better result for the public.
Finally, in a bid to stop anyone saying that the Bill should not have a Second Reading because ten-minute Bills rarely reach the statute book, may I note and thank the many hon. Members of all parties who have expressed support for it, and tell the House that my first ten-minute Bill achieved success when its recommendation was adopted by the Government in the Homes Bill. I hope that the sensible improvement for road users proposed in this Bill will, in the same fashion, be adopted by the Government so that road users will not be unnecessarily disrupted in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Julia Drown, Valerie Davey, Mr. David Drew, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Andrew George, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Martin Salter, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. Simon Thomas, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Mc. Tom Brake

STREET WORKS
Ms Julia Drown accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to cable companies and other undertakers of street works: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Elections Bill and Election Publications Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), which stands in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in paragraph 1(1), after "on Second Reading," to leave out
"in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading".
3.41 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords]—

Timing of proceedings on the Elections Bill
1.—(1) On the Elections Bill, proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock.

(3) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.

2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Timing of proceedings on the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
3.—(1) On the Election Publications Bill [Lords], proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock.

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; and

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Questions to be put
4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3.
(2) The Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or under sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill
5.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.

6.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 5.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages of the Elections Bill
7.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

8.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 7.

340

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Elections Bill
9.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Elections Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

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

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

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

Subsequent stages of the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
10.—(1) Any Message (or further Message) from the Lords on the Election Publications Bill [Lords] shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on arty Message (or further Message) from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

11.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
12.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Election Publications Bill [Lords] and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

341

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

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

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

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

Miscellaneous
l3.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to seven o'clock; but

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.

(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

14.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

16.—(1) The Question on any Motion m tde by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(3) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

17. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Those who are experts in the number of guillotine motions that have been before the House since the war—those who are not experts are recommended to read the research document available, as ever, in the Library—will know that it is not unusual for a single allocation of time motion to be moved in respect of two Bills. However, the circumstances of this allocation of time motion are unusual, although they are not unprecedented.
Most allocation of time motions arise because of the Government's difficulties in getting a normal Bill through all its proceedings, owing to problems in securing the Opposition's co-operation. That is a timeless verity, and it is true regardless of which party fills the Treasury Benches. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says from a sedentary position, "Oh yes, quite routine." It was routine for guillotine motions to be moved in the 1980s, and some of us remember those.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Fewer than three.
Mr. Straw: No, there were not fewer than three guillotine motions in the 1980s. The number of guillotine
342
motions is principally a function of the way in which an Opposition behave. There were a large number of guillotine motions in the 1980s, because the then Opposition, of whom I was a Front-Bench member, decided that they were not willing to co-operate in sensible informal understandings about the timetabling of motions. For reasons that I fully understood, although I sometimes vociferously disagreed with them at the time, the Government therefore decided, rightly, that they were entitled to get their business through, and tabled guillotine motions accordingly.
There were far fewer guillotine motions in the latter part of the 1992 to 1997 Parliament, because by that stage, after 15, 16 or 17 years in opposition, the Labour party had learned a lesson—that it made a great deal more sense to spend time debating the heart of a Bill, agreeing sensible timetables, ensuring that they could be delivered by effective internal party discipline, and then getting out to campaign.
Mr. Eric Forth rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
That strategy was far more impressive. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) shakes his head, but if he studies the facts, he will see that to have been the case. He will also see that, at greater length than I propose to do so today, I have offered gratuitous but, I hope, welcome advice to the Opposition in their current predicament. It would be against my interests for them to accept that advice, but it is available to them.
Mr. Forth rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. I always do.
Two of the guillotine motions during our time in opposition were ones with which we agreed. Those included the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996, which passed through all its stages during Easter 1996.
Mr. Forth: Does the Home Secretary's research tell him how many guillotines were introduced during the glorious period of Conservative Government to ensure that Bills passed through all their stages within one hour? Does he not recognise that the Government's introduction of such a requirement is not only extraordinary and exceptional, but is an insult to our parliamentary process? What is the precedent for their actions?
Mr. Straw: I could while away the time, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the precedent that was set only a few days ago in the other place, where, without timetabling, every single stage of the Bill's consideration was completed in 24 minutes. That was achieved because the Bill was agreed in terms by the three main parties and because the Government had introduced it at their request. If the Opposition in this House were capable of even a modicum of the discipline that is possible in the other place, a guillotine motion would not be needed. The right hon. Gentleman wears a badge of honour. His party is so deeply divided that it is absolutely impossible for its leader or Whips ever to gain the agreement of their Back Benchers, and he knows it, as he

343
is one of the rebels. Indeed, he is one of the many Opposition Back Benchers who hold their Front-Bench colleagues in almost utter and undisguised contempt, and who will lose almost no opportunity to embarrass them.
Miss Widdecombe: After that long diatribe, will the Home Secretary please answer the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? When have any Government taken a Bill through Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading in 60 minutes flat?
Mr. Straw: I have just answered the right hon. Lady's question by referring to the other place, which recognised that the Bill was agreed on. It is widely known that the other place usually takes rather longer to complete such deliberations, as it has no guillotine arrangements. However, as it was understood that the Bill had been agreed on because it sought to remedy—
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in your wisdom, you have selected two amendments for discussion in relation to this Bill whose consideration will be limited to one hour? As the Home Secretary is seeking to misinform us, it would be helpful to know that that is the case and that the amendments are relevant.
Mr. Speaker: The amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will be considered in Committee. I did not select them for consideration; they were selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the reasons for introducing the Bill, after which—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is bad tempered today—very bad tempered indeed.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady is bad tempered every day, Mr. Speaker, but we all get used to it. It is a bit like the weather. Life would not be the same without her sedentary mutterings, for which we have come to show so much affection.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Home Secretary said that the Bill was passed in the other place by agreement, but I understand that there was opposition. The speeches made by the former leader of the Ulster Unionist party could not in any way be said to have commended the Bill. In this House, can smaller parties from Northern Ireland now take it that we are not considered at all? We did not receive the Elections Bill in good time, and we have received apologies for that, which we have accepted. How is three-way agreement achieved when the main part of that Bill, which we will discuss today, is to do with Northern Ireland? Surely representatives from Northern Ireland should have been properly consulted and given time for proper debate.
Mr. Straw: With respect, I was talking about the second Bill, the Election Publications Bill, because I had been led on to that subject. I shall return later to the main
344
Bill before the House, to which more time has been allocated, although I accept that the time is limited. In that Bill, by far the greatest number of words is related to Northern Ireland, and of course I will take any interventions from the hon. Gentleman in respect of that.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed on the Election Publications Bill, I will take an intervention later.
The publications Bill is a short, three-clause Bill that has been introduced following representations from all three main parties. All parties have many thousands of prospective candidates throughout the country and are likely to be in the same difficulty regarding the new imprint requirements, and we need to regularise the position as soon as possible. The fact that local elections are to be postponed for five weeks does not alter the need to proceed expeditiously. I have already explained that last week the other place took 23 minutes to give the Bill a Second Reading, and the remaining stages were taken in two minutes flat.
I want to deal with the suggestion made last week by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, and now by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, that the need for the Bill has arisen because of flawed drafting in the original Bill. That is not the case. The original Bill was the subject of considerable discussion by the parties. There was then further consultation with the parties about the commencement order, which could have made effectively the same provisions as this Bill: a phased introduction of the new sections and the continuation for a period of the existing section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I consulted all the parties, and none of them noticed—neither did I, but I am in good company—that the consequence of the commencement order was to place every potential candidate in a situation where any material that had been printed but not formally published in advance of the new sections coming into force could technically have put them, their agents and, possibly, their printers at risk of criminal proceedings. Obviously, that was unacceptable.
Discussions rapidly took place between the parties in a different atmosphere from the one that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has tried to generate. We agreed not that the new Bill would repeal those words but that it would provide for them to be phased in in a different way and that the original section 110 would be deemed to have taken effect. [Interruption.] It has to be deemed so to be enforced. It is not the first time that such words have been used in amending the law and it will not be the last. We reinstated section 110 and suspended the operation of the new Act and there will be further consultation about bringing the provisions into force after the forthcoming elections.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Before the beginning of the Second Reading of the publications Bill, will the Home Secretary place in the Library the documentation appertaining to the consultation that lie says he carried out? I am aware that on 4 November 1999, a senior Home Office official

345
consulted about matters to do with the hiring of hackney carriages, committee rooms and planned changes to election law petitions, but there was no mention of the imprint in that consultation. On 17 January 2000, the same official wrote to 100 registered parties to say that the Home Office
aim to issue regular bulletins to registered parties on the Bill's progress."
No such progress has been the subject of consultation with any political party.
Mr. Straw: I shall do my best to comply with the hon. Lady's—
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: Allow me to finish my answer to the shadow Leader of the House. I shall do my best to comply—
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman until I have dealt with his hon. Friend's question. He should show more manners than he usually does in debates.
I shall do my best to comply with the hon. Lady's request, and if we cannot get the documents, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give her a more detailed response. My clear recollection is that the parties were consulted about the bringing into force of parts of that Act, and we consulted about the orders. In any case, I shall get back to the hon. Lady about that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how the new wording "promoting of a candidate" helps to enhance the electorate's understanding of the documents? What was wrong with the old wording "printed and published by"?
Mr. Straw: Some people may say that there was nothing particularly wrong with the old wording. It was put to the House that we should make it clearer on whose behalf—[Interruption.] I shall give the hon. Gentleman an explanation if he wants one, otherwise I shall not bother to take interventions and we shall just plough on. It is quite straightforward.
The formula "printed and published" has been used for locally produced publicity for decades, and works satisfactorily. In material printed and published on behalf of a candidate, it is obvious who the candidate is. The new provisions aim to deal with two problems. First, in material published on behalf of third parties, it is not always obvious on whose behalf it is published. The material may attack a candidate, or it may ask people to vote for candidates who support one proposition rather than another. The second matter, which was not dealt with under the Representation of the People Act 1983, concerns nationally produced material.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now going into the detail of the Bill rather than the allocation of time.
Mr. Straw: The timetable motion is necessary because we have had to amend the original provisions in the
346
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Furthermore, in the past there have been no requirements in respect of material produced nationally. Now that we have a regime for expenditure, it is important that we know on what that expenditure has been based.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
Mr. Straw: In view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I shall make some progress, and then accept a few more interventions. As ever, I have taken a large number of interventions.
Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way. I shall come back to that matter later.
As Conservative Members are concerned about precedents, I have been told that in 1989 the Gaming (Amendment) Bill went through Second Reading and remaining stages without debate.
Mr. Forth: Was there a guillotine?
Mr. Straw: There was almost certainly not a guillotine, because there were not people like the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hogg: What about Bob Cryer?
Mr. Straw: Bob Cryer was an infinitely better parliamentarian than the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). As I remember, at the time the right hon. Gentleman had taken the Queen's shilling and with that a Trappist vow of silence to obey the Whips, so we did not have anarchist interventions from him.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall now make some progress, because other hon. Members want to speak.
I took representations on the new provisions that have been brought into force. I can tell the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that letters were sent to a variety of people consulting them on the orders. A letter dated 12 December 2000 was sent to Mr. Stephen Gilbert in the Conservative party and to equivalent people in other parties. [Interruption.] I gather from the hon. Member for Buckingham Mr. Bercow that he is a great man, so at least we know he exists and that some people have a high opinion of him. That makes it even more odd that he was not able to impart that information to the shadow Leader of the House. Anyway, I had representations about the effects of the proposals.
At this point, I must declare an interest. At about the time when representations were being made by the national parties, I was going through my cellar and my attic in Blackburn, and came across a large stock of posters, some dating back to the 1980s.
Mr. Hogg: We shall be looking at your election expenses!
Mr. Straw: No, that will all be taken into account.

347
The posters bore messages such as "We back Jack", "Get Jack back" and "Let's back Jack". They have always worked in the past, and I look forward to their working in the future. We have been careful never to put a time or a date on the out-slips. We have not gone quite so far as going to collect them back—[Interruption.] They do in other parts of Lancashire, according to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who I am pleased to see is with us again. I thought it ridiculous, however, for us to be prevented from using such messages by a technicality. I am sorry that the arrangements were introduced in the way that they were; I did not spot the error and neither did my officials, but nor, it must be said, did the other parties.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham, as he has been straining at the leash.
Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary's tutorial on succinct slogans for deployment in Blackburn is doubtless very illuminating, but I am rather more concerned about the deplorable way in which he has rewritten history. Is he unaware that—to name but one example—my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has emphasised several times that when he was a Minister in the last Government, he did not even consider talking to either the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip about the possibility of a guillotine motion until debate on the Bill for which he was responsible had lasted for at least 100 hours?
Mr. Straw: I think it was 80 hours, but we can argue about that. There was a convention, but it was sometimes left in abeyance when the Conservatives were in power. Moreover—I have a list here—it was extremely rare, certainly after my right hon. Friend the current Prime Minister had become Leader of the Opposition, for any Bill to be guillotined. That was because the Opposition changed the way in which they behaved.
There was no necessity for the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border to consult the Leader of the House or anyone else about a guillotine when I was shadow Home Secretary, because, with two exceptions, the welter of Home Office legislation contained no Bills that we forced to a guillotine. We sensibly agreed a timetable, in a much shorter time than 80 hours.
Yes, we had our disagreements about Bills. Some were very strong disagreements; in other cases we may have agreed with the overall purpose of the Bill, but disagreed with parts of it. We got on with things and did the business, however, and we represented our constituents better than we would have done by keeping ourselves here until the small hours and making life incomprehensible to the voters. The two exceptions that I mentioned were the guillotine on the Bill that became the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996, which I agreed to because I was supporting the then Home Secretary—others may have thought that those powers were not necessary—and the guillotine on what became the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which was
348
introduced in the wake of the massacre at Dunblane. We supported that Bill, although we did not think that it went far enough. My recollection is that the guillotine was introduced very quickly, well in advance of the 80-hours rule. The concern was that the Bill would be disrupted by people who did not want firearms controls.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I confess that I am now totally bewildered. We are discussing a timetable on the Elections Bill. May I enter a little caveat? I disagree with everything that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says, but in this instance he has a point. It is terribly important that the House of Commons should not rush through legislation without being clear what it is doing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the Bills that he has mentioned, particularly that on prevention of terrorism, are clear examples of what happens when this House accepts legislation in one day? It then has to spend considerable time amending it.
Mr. Straw: I accept that it will be far better—it makes for much better debate, too—if there can be agreements between the parties. It is sometimes necessary—on this occasion, it is palpably necessary—for there to be a timetable motion. Sometimes, timetable motions are short, but agreement between the parties requires that the parties themselves are able to maintain some discipline. We were not in that position in the 1980s. We were in that position in the 1990s. I regret to say—although, in the end, it is their problem, not ours—that the current Opposition are not in that position.
Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I promise to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a few minutes, after I have had made some further progress.
I come to the reason for the timetable on the Elections Bill. The case for the Elections Bill was made at some length, as was, to some extent, the case against it, so far as one could understand it, during the exchanges on my statement on Monday. When I looked at Hansard, I noticed that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald went on for twice as long as I had in my original statement and it still was not particularly clear what exactly she was saying.
Although there is argument about the date to which the elections should be deferred—the Opposition say that they should be deferred without date and we say, as I believe do the Liberal Democrats, that they should be deferred until 7 June—there is no argument between the main parties that they should be deferred from 3 May. That being the case, they must be deferred very quickly. Otherwise, the electoral process will simply continue. It has to. Money has to continue to be spent unless and until the Bill is passed by the House and by the other place.
On Monday, I went into detail—I will go into further detail on Second Reading—to explain why we believe that it is inappropriate in terms not only of the process of elections, tourism and other factors, but of the conduct of local councils and their ability to represent their electors, to defer the elections for any significant time past 7 June. There is an argument about whether the date should be 7, 14 or 21 June. That is a choice, but it was plain to me when

349
I was explaining the matter in the House on Monday that many Opposition Members simply had not worked out what the consequences would be of an indefinite deferral of local elections. In making the case for the urgent timetable motion, I will briefly spell that out.
If the elections are deferred indefinitely, one of two consequences will follow. One is that all by-elections will be deferred indefinitely. If that happens, with increasing frequency, existing members of councils, who I am sure will be willing to serve for an extra five weeks, but who were to have resigned on 3 May, or were not seeking renomination on 3 May, will resign because they have decided—or their party has decided on their behalf—not to serve for a further term. As I explained to the House, at each election—it is a surprisingly high figure—there is a turnover of about a quarter of councillors. They go. Therefore, over the coming months, we would find that 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of councillors had resigned. Sadly, some vacancies result from deaths.
As vacancies arose, for inevitable reasons, such as illness and death, the control of councils would start to shift as the balance changed randomly between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, or Conservatives and independents, simply because of resignations and deaths and not through the decision of the electorate. That must be wrong and would cause chaos in the administration of councils.
The alternative would be to continue to allow by-elections to take place, but we would then have a stream of by-elections, which have to be called within 35 days of a vacancy arising and to take place within 25 working days of that declaration—there is little of the flexibility that we have in respect of parliamentary by-elections—in the very rural areas where the disruption caused by foot and mouth is at its greatest.
If that course—logically and administratively, the better course—were followed, the weekly or bi-weekly by-elections in Cumbria and Devon would be more disruptive to rural life there and to the focus on foot and mouth than having a single day for the local elections, as we are proposing.
Mr. Hogg: I apologise for taking the Home Secretary back to what he was saying earlier on the Election Publications Bill and why the errors were made. Does that not illustrate why it would be helpful if we resorted more often to Special Standing Committees, allowing evidence to be taken and problems to come to light before a Bill is considered in detail?
Mr. Straw: As a health warning and caveat to my remarks, let me say that these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but personally I think that there is a lot in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He will forgive me if I remind him that in opposition we used to argue for Special Standing Committees, and one was used for the Children Act 1989—
Mr. Hogg: No, it was—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he must be quiet when he is seated.
Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You are absolutely right. I was trying to correct the Home Secretary, but you are right.
Mr. Speaker: I am always right.
Mr. Hogg: May I say how pleased I am to know that?
Mr. Straw: I am sometimes wrong, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be right that it was not the Children Act but a special education measure on which we had a Special Standing Committee. Leaving that aside, I introduced a Special Standing Committee for the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and it was the better for it, so I accept that point.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: It would be a very useful development if a Cabinet Minister such as my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to the House that in future all Bills from his Department would be treated under that procedure. Once one Cabinet Minister took that decision in principle, others would follow. It is not only a matter for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. How we treat Bills is nothing to do with the allocation of time motion. We must restrict ourselves to that.
Mr. Straw: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I will have to talk to my hon. Friend in the Tea Room.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am concerned that we will not have time to reach clause 2, which relates to Northern Ireland. Is the Home Secretary confident that we will be able to have a proper debate on Northern Ireland, because some issues need to be discussed that make us nervous about the potential change of date?
Mr. Straw: I accept the concern of the hon. Gentleman, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Northern Ireland matters. I have also had representations from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the provisions as they affect Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with those matters when he replies.
I have explained the case for both Bills—with a bit of luck, to the satisfaction of both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Opposition Members have been shot down in flames by their request for a precedent. The Gaming (Amendment) Act is a great precedent. The fact that it was not guillotined is neither here nor there; it was passed. My guess is that that legislation was far more significant to far more people than the Election Publications Bill will ever be, as it will affect only the small minority of those who are candidates or agents for elections. That is the precedent.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
I should also add that, in the other place, the official representatives of the other parties were happy to co-operate in the consideration of the Election Publications Bill.

351
The Elections Bill will defer the date of the elections. As I said, there is widespread agreement on both sides of the House that they have to be deferred. Although there is disagreement on the date to which they should be deferred, that does not affect the need for urgency. What does affect the need for urgency is the fact that, if we do not produce certainty and ensure that everyone is given the legal certainty that 3 May is no longer the date for the elections and that another date has been inserted, we will simply waste a great deal of money and the time of local government staff, candidates, agents and their helpers.
For those reasons—although I understand the concerns about guillotine motions and I do not like introducing them—I hope that the House will accept my arguments.
4.17 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have to say that, even for the Home Secretary, that speech was preposterous. The last time he moved a guillotine motion, he concluded his speech by saying:
"I look forward to the embraces and kisses of the Opposition."—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 994.]
Mr. Hogg: Of you, Ann.
Miss Widdecombe: Well, he said the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman received neither embraces nor kisses on that occasion, and he will certainly not receive any from Opposition Members today. There is no justification whatsoever for what can be described only as an outrageous and absurd guillotine motion, tabled by the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House. The motion will hinder the interests of democracy and of our constituents, who send us here to hold the Government to account and to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament are in good order, well thought through and properly scrutinised.
It is only a couple of weeks since three Members of the Conservative Whips Office and I were sufficiently incensed by the lack of true accountability by the Government to try to bring the issue to wider public attention. Today, we have two more justifications for that sit-in.
Later, in one hour flat, we shall put a Bill through all its stages in the House—a Bill that would never have been necessary if the House had been allowed to scrutinise the original Bill properly. The amendment that it seeks to correct was never put to the House for debate and was introduced at a late stage in the other place. Yet, undeterred by having created such a mess that an emergency Bill is now necessary, the Government still push it through without any attempt at serious scrutiny.
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman—I have challenged him before and I challenge him again—to tell me of any other occasion, under any Government, when a Bill on the constitution was taken through Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading in 60 minutes flat at the behest of a Government on an imposed guillotine.
Mr. Hogg: Not only that, but the Bill was published yesterday without any pre-publication discussion or consultation.
Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is right: that only makes the situation vastly worse.
352
Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that he is insulting this Holm and the British people? They are being governed by tranches of law that have never been debated by the House, much less voted on.
Mr. Forth: The matter is even worse than my right hon. Friend suggests. As it happens, an amendment that I tabled to the Elections Publications Bill has been selected. It was known to have been selected, yet the Government tabled this vicious guillotine, allocating one hour for all stages, in the knowledge that the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected an amendment. Since then, another amendment tabled in the name of an hon. Member from another party has been selected. Does not that compound the matter beyond all endurance?
Miss Widdecombe: It certainly does. Large numbers of amendments to both Bills will not be debated tonight. We have already seen the consequence of such an approach. We would not have had to debate the Election Publications Bill today if there had been proper scrutiny of the original Bill.
I remind the Home Secretary of his words to the House on 4 April last year, of which today's debate may be considered to be the anniversary:
"It is in the nature of Home Office Bills, particularly constitutional ones, that they are subject to amendment. That is an important part of the process.—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c.928.]
On 29 November last year, the Home Secretary said:
"I thank individual Opposition Members as much as my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which every Bill in which I have been involved has been improved as a result of the parliamentary process."—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357. c. 987.]
Yet it is that important part of the constitutional process, which has resulted in the improvement of every Bill with which the Home Secretary has been involved, that the right hon. Gentleman is dispensing with this evening.
What is the justification for the guillotine motion? It is not as though the Opposition are trying to delay or frustrate the Elections Bill. As I made clear in response to the Home Secretary's statement on Monday afternoon, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have decided—albeit belatedly—to provide for a postponement of the local elections, which were due to take place on 3 May. Indeed, it was the Opposition who first called, more than two weeks ago, for such a measure to be introduced.
The Election Publications Bill is also the subject of cross-party consensus, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, and as he knows full well. There is not a shred of evidence to support the contention that, without a guillotine, the Opposition would attempt to delay or frustrate the Bill, yet these days the House cannot expect much more from a Home Secretary and a Leader of the House who had the audacity only a few weeks ago to deem that the Committee stage of a major Bill had been completed, despite the fact that more than half its text had never been considered.
So what is the real reason for the motion? The House, and especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), will recall the attitude of Labour Members during the Committee stage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—and of one Labour Member in

353
particular. During that Committee, which also sat on the Floor of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who at the time graced the Opposition Front Bench, made some extremely powerful points about the Government's proposals on referendum rules. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), refused to respond to the debate. In justification, he said:
"Hon. Members in all parts of the House will understand that some hon. Members want to go home. One can understand that."— [Official Report, 16 February 2001; Vol. 344, c. 1071.]
The Minister made those remarks at midnight. One can therefore understand perfectly well why the guillotine motion will cut short debate this evening at 11 pm: Labour Members will want to go home, rather than stay here and ensure that the legislation being considered by the House, which goes to the very heart of our democracy, is in good order.
The right hon. Gentleman is again moving a guillotine motion on constitutional legislation, which shows exactly what the Government think about both these important constitutional measures and about the need for consensus and agreement on them.
What happened to the right hon. Gentleman? He said in February 1995:
"You can only move for constitutional change by consensus, by consent, and you've got to get these things right."
When the House considers the Elections Publications Bill later tonight, right hon. and hon. Members will see exactly how the right hon. Gentleman failed to get things right in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) will have more to say on that subject when the time comes.
The guillotine motion means that the House will have very little time, if any, in which to consider the important amendments that have been tabled on a range of crucial electoral issues. Indeed, when the Government amendments are made in Committee and the House proceeds to consideration on Report, the farcical procedure that applied to the Football (Disorder) Bill in the previous Session will apply again. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) must be calm. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Lady will withdraw that remark. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Lady will get to her feet and withdraw that remark.
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I was simply saying—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the right hon. Lady talk about misleading the House.
Ms Armstrong: I said that I was concerned that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was not going to mislead the House. I withdraw everything.
Miss Widdecombe: Does the Home Secretary recall the proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill, when the
354
House was forced to consider amendments on Report that had not been printed to a Bill that had not been reprinted? Furthermore, although my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) wanted to retable his Committee amendments, which had not been discussed in Committee because of the guillotine, he was not able to do so because in waiting to discuss them in Committee he missed the deadline for Report.
I described the procedure as a farce, and that is exactly what it was. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) commented:
"The House has been asked to consider amendments on Report to a Bill that was not even before us simply because it had not been printed as amended in Committee. People who had not been here would not have been able to follow debate on the Bill that we were amending, and those of us who were here all day have found it difficult to follow the implications of each and every amendment.— [Official Report, 17 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 176.]
Even the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
"I am acutely aware of criticisms about the time taken to address the Bill and consider its various aspects."—[Official Report, 17 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 173.]
Yet, despite that experience and the Minister's comments, the guillotine motion before the House today takes no account of those criticisms and no account of the experience on that Bill.
Rev. Ian Paisley: One of the Bills before us contains a reference to schedule 1 of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001. There is no such Act. As a good parliamentarian, I asked to see all the Acts, and I was told that there is no such Act. The Bill provides for the amendment of an Act that does not exist.
Miss Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his close scrutiny. The point of having a debate is that the House can provide close scrutiny, but it will be denied to us today. Before the Government produce a flawed Bill, perhaps they will very hastily consider the hon. Gentleman's important contribution.
There is not even a provision for a five-minute delay in which to allow right hon. and hon. Members to table amendments for Report or to allow the Bill to be reprinted. In a few hours, the House will be faced with the same unacceptable situation. Indeed, it will be even more unacceptable, because only one hour will be allowed for Report and Third Reading, so there will almost certainly be no Third Reading debate.
It is all the more important for the House to have adequate time to consider the Elections Bill, above all in view of the hasty way in which it has been put together. I believe that it has been even more hastily drafted than the Football (Disorder) Bill, which was considered and consulted on for almost a week, if I remember correctly, yet a large number of improvements were subsequently made to it, several of which resulted from matters first raised in Opposition amendments.
The Elections Bill has been cobbled together in what must have been a matter of hours. Throughout last month, the Government, mostly through the Prime Minister's official spokesman, made it clear not only that they had no proposals to introduce legislation of this nature but that they were not even working on contingency plans—so we all know how much notice the Cabinet, above all the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, had of the reversal of that decision.

355
Hon. Members from all parties have already identified parts of the Bill that could be improved, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has identified where the Bill is just plain nonsense. It is important that the House has time to consider the points that have been made, but even if the debate on the guillotine motion does not run for three hours, which is what the Government have allowed, the House will not get far past the Second Reading debate and, if it is extremely lucky, a couple of groups of amendments, before the guillotine falls. Important issues such as limiting the compensation scheme to independent candidates, as we have proposed, will not be debated. Nor will we debate the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on compensation for the expenditure incurred by the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland.
Other important amendments tabled by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will not be discussed, including those on combining polling cards for the local and national elections and those tabled by Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist Members on whether counting agents should be allowed to be present when ballot papers placed in the wrong box are sorted out.
The Home Secretary will recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who spoke for the Opposition on the guillotine motion that the Home Secretary moved on 29 November. He said:
"We value the Home Secretary's reputation as someone who is serious about this place. He is in such stark contrast to the Prime Minister and others who treat the Chamber in a cavalier way."—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 994.]
My right hon. Friend then commented that the Home Secretary was tarnishing that reputation by moving the guillotine on that occasion. Today, the Home Secretary has no reputation for taking this place seriously. In the past, his guillotines have produced chaos in the Chamber and, as the House will see later when it considers the Election Publications Bill, botched legislation that need not have been a mess had this arrogant and dictatorial Government had any respect for the usual democratic processes.
The motion is an affront to the House and to the people who sent us here, who expect us to spend more than a few minutes on important proposals: that we will not do so is testament to the arrogance of the Government—an arrogance that will not be forgotten in the coming weeks as the guillotine falls on this contemptuous, arrogant, incompetent, out-of-touch, control-freak Government when the election comes, if it does come, on 7 June.
4.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Like the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats broadly support both the Bills that are the subject of the guillotine motion. The Government, having weighed the matter up carefully, have decided that the local government elections should be deferred from 3 May to 7 June, and my party supports them. Equally, the issue of the imprints and the introduction of the new regulations is an important one for the political parties. The Home Secretary is right to point to the fact that all three political parties were in favour of that change, and indeed urged that it should be made.
356
As far as I can understand it, all three major political parties in the House agree that the legislation is fit and proper for the House to consider and that it ought to be passed without unreasonable delay.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that large sections of the Elections Bill that refer to Northern Ireland have nothing to do with such supervening factors as foot and mouth, which bring the three major parties into agreement to support the principle of the Bill?
Mr. Stunell: I fully understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on that matter. I was careful to make it clear that I was speaking on behalf only of the Liberal Democrats—I have made clear my views on that point. Several issues of detail in both Bills attracted the attention of my colleagues and me. Were the debate to be of sufficient length and thoroughness, we would want those matters to be included.
Given the broad consensus in the House and the willingness on both sides that progress be made with reasonable speed, the guillotine is out of place, unnecessary and probably counter-productive. Apart from any other consideration, even if such a guillotine were thought appropriate, the time allocated is ridiculously short for debate on inch serious issues.
The House and one of its Committees—the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, on which I serve—have spent a great deal of time working out how the House could be more effective in the examination and rectification of legislation. In pursuit of that aim, I put questions to the Leader of the House. She assured me that one characteristic of the Labour Government was that they were improving the first drafts of Bills—the quality of measures when they are first put before the House is so much better that she wants to claim some credit for that.
I tabled a parliamentary question to establish the ratio of clauses, as introduced, to subsequent Government amendments in legislation under the previous Conservative Government and under the Labour Government. I thought it appropriate to set up some quality control to judge whether the claim made by the Leader of the House was soundly based. The answer was that the cost of working out the figures would be disproportionate. That is a circumlocutory way of saying that there is no evidence whatever to support the claim that the quality of legislation is better—or, indeed, worse—under the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government.
Mr. Hogg: Is not the truth that the quality of legislation improves only to the extent that there is discussion and consultation before publication? In cases such as these Bills—by definition—there is neither.
Mr. Stunell: I strongly support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument—indeed, I am probably ahead of him, because I have deployed such an argument in the Modernisation Committee, although not all his hon. Friends felt as confident of it as me.
That brings us to the question of whether the time allowed under the guillotine is anything like sufficient to accommodate the issues raised by the Bills. I did not hear the Home Secretary suggest that he believes for a moment

357
that the range of amendments submitted—nor those selected by either the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee—is outrageous, perverse or out of order. A total of 50 amendments to the Elections Bill have been selected for debate. Approximately 50 others were not selected—I have not made an exact count. That is a large number of amendments covering substantial and important issues. Even after the latest list was printed, a further seven manuscript amendments were submitted but, of course, the House will not really have an opportunity to evaluate their importance.
Some of the issues for debate might be dismissed quite quickly by the House. It might decide that they are matters solely for debate, not for serious consideration, but one or two issues are clearly above the threshold of being available merely for debate. Compensation for candidates, which is dealt with in the Bill, is a matter on which my right hon. and hon. Friends have commented very unfavourably. Will there be an opportunity to debate that and to take a decision on it?
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) raised with me the issue of Northern Ireland. In fact, a substantial proportion of the Elections Bill relates to Northern Ireland, and issues have been raised about the difficulties that might be caused by holding the local elections and the general election simultaneously and about the fact that—at least, at present—we can give thanks that there is no foot and mouth in Northern Ireland, and so on. Will there be time for those issues to be discussed?
I understand that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has proposed in some amendments that the elections might be deferred to different dates in different areas. Those important issues might be dealt with quickly, but they certainly merit debate.
The Bill contains errors. For example, in deferring the annual meetings of councils as a consequence of deferring the local elections, police and joint fire authorities were overlooked, so we find that the dates of their annual meetings are not in synchronisation with the new timetable. Surely that needs to be discussed and rectified.
I noticed, by the new magic medium of e-mail, that the Home Office has today had to reissue its circular to returning officers, drawing their attention to an error in the timetable that it had included in the circular that it issued yesterday. Yet again, that shows not just the haste and speed—all of which is desirable, as we want all these things to be done—but the fact that there are issues before the House that even the Home Office has not squared and got ready to go.
Surely the right way forward is to allow not only reasonable time to debate those issues, but reasonable time to elapse for people to get their thinking caps on, so that they can anticipate and steer around the difficulties that may be thrown up. To advocate doing that is not to say that the Bill should not be passed, nor that it should be delayed, but simply to say that the Bill should receive proper scrutiny in the first place, so that we get it right first time.
I shall comment for a moment or two on the Election Publications Bill, with which the House will also deal tonight as a result of the guillotine. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the original Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and I spoke on
358
behalf of the Liberal Democrats at each stage of the debate. The Committee was unusual. My experience of such matters is that Standing Committees are sometimes blessed with a few experts in the particular topic, but seldom is 100 per cent. of the membership made up of experts—yet every hon. Member on that Standing Committee was an expert. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will remember that we crawled over the detail of that Bill perhaps almost to excess, but such matters were not at the forefront of our consideration.
I understand that the Bill is intended to ensure that third-party endorsements of particular candidates—or, more likely, third-party attacks on them—are properly attributed in future. Clearly, all political parties would understand the need for, and the desirability of, that proposal, but they would also understand that is not practical to introduce it now, given the very compressed timetable that is proposed.
I remind the Home Secretary and the Minister that one of the questions that was persistently asked of the Home Office team in Committee was whether they thought that electoral commissioners could be put in place and produce their rulings and guidance in time for a general election that, even then, was widely expected to take place about now. Home Office Ministers were sure that everything would be put in place and that we would be satisfied. However, that has not been possible.
We will have only an hour to debate the Election Publications Bill. That may be sufficient, because only two amendments have been tabled. They cover exactly the same point even though they propose slightly different mechanisms to deal with it. In due course, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate them. However, the amendments refer to the Home Secretary's capacity—alone and unaided—to reintroduce the proposals that I mentioned entirely without consultation. Therefore, it is important to the House that we debate that issue, so that either the amendments are accepted or we receive cast-iron assurances from the Government and the Home Secretary about their future behaviour. It is one thing to suspend the provisions almost without notice, but it might be another to introduce them—or perhaps deliberately to fail to introduce them—when it is appropriate to do so entirely on the fiat of the Home Secretary.
Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should lift the guillotine and withdraw the motion. They should let the debate take its course, because they would be pleasantly surprised at the outcome that that would produce. If a vote takes place when expected, we shall have only a little over two hours to debate the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Elections Bill and we shall have one hour to debate the Election Publications Bill.
The first debate is the most serious and we shall have only two minutes to debate each amendment, and that assumes that we have no votes. The guillotine, as imposed out of the blue in an unnecessary and counterproductive fashion, is wrong in principle, but I hope that even the Government can see that it is wholly inadequate in practice. I ask the Minister to make a concession on the issue of time. I hope very much that we can have a comparatively short debate on this motion, so that we can use the maximum amount of time on real scrutiny of the Bills.

359
We have been jammed into an uncomfortable and wholly unsatisfactory and unnecessary position. The solution lies with Ministers, and we look very much to them to provide us with that solution.
4.48 pm
Mr. Robert McCartney: I wish to speak about the Elections Bill, which is particularly significant for Northern Ireland. It is important that procedures that limit the time that the House has to consider any Bill be used sparingly; but when the Bill affects the constitutional rights of electors and may influence their future, such a procedure must be used even more sparingly.
The greater part of the Elections Bill is taken up with matters relating to Northern Ireland. Because of the effects of foot and mouth, it is understandable that there may be a great deal of agreement about the Bill's contents among the parties that are largely concerned with the United Kingdom mainland, but that consideration does not affect Northern Ireland. At present, we are free from foot and mouth, so there is absolutely no objection to local government elections taking place in Northern Ireland in accordance with extant legislation. They could be held on 16 May, with a general election to follow once a date is determined.
We should have a full debate on aspects of the Bill that pertain to Northern Ireland. It should not be time limited. There is a grave suspicion that those provisions are being included for no reason whatsoever. They do not appear to be connected with the general election or foot and mouth. It has been common knowledge for some time that, to further their policies and objectives in relation to the peace process or the Belfast agreement, the Government have made moves to ensure that the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party should gain an advantage by a change in electoral arrangements. It was at first suggested that the local government elections in Northern Ireland should be postponed from 16 May 2001 to an indefinite future date, while local government was possibly reorganised. The agreement of the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP could not be obtained for that.
Long before the issue of foot and mouth arose in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, there were rumours in political circles in Northern Ireland that local government elections and the general election would be held on the same day. Fundamental constitutional issues are at stake and should be debated at length, including whether the principles of democracy and electors' rights are best served by having elections which use two systems on the same day. In Northern Ireland, voters will be expected to follow the general election procedure of first past the post, which allows them simply to put an X against the name of the single candidate for whom they want to vote, and the local government election procedure, which is based on proportional representation. Under that system, the voter marks his preference for one, two, three, four, five, six or more candidates on a list. It is not a matter of applying the same electoral principles as obtain for the election on the mainland, which will always use the first past the post system.
The capacity for engendering confusion, difficulty, misunderstanding and protests about the validity of votes is protean in Northern Ireland. Indeed, some of the
360
proposals plainly provide for the boxes that contain the votes to be opened at the discretion of the returning officer, without the scrutiny of party representatives, to allow general election votes to be separated like the wheat and the tares from the votes cast in the local government elections. By making provisions that recognise the substantial mistakes that will be made and the mix-ups and confusion that will occur, on which the returning officer will have to decide, the Bill acknowledges my concern, which I hope I have put with some force. It is absolutely ludicrous, in purely electoral terms, to have two elections on the same day for two different sets of candidates that operate under two fundamentally different voting procedures.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland dissents from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying—I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening. The schedule to the Electrons Bill states:
"Nothing in these rules or the local elections rules requires the counting agents to be given facilities for overseeing the proceedings mentioned".
What are those proceedings? Are they that the boxes should be opened, every vote be taken out, the coloured votes separated into one pile and the white votes into another, all with no public scrutiny? Are those votes then to be wrapped up in a parcel and sent out with an outrider—we realise that local government people have employed outriders to go on motorbike to deliver parcels of votes to other places—without scrutiny? The Under-Secretary needs to face up to that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the debate.
Mr. McCartney: I return to my general theme. For reasons that have nothing to do with the emergency in the United Kingdom at large, which has made it necessary for us to consider both Bills, the Government have decided to incorporate in one of them provisions that are not required by any exigency in Northern Ireland, and to import a system of voting that guarantees confusion. Indeed, the Bill recognises and provides for the sorting out of anticipated difficulty.
The Government are imposing a guillotine on a Bill that provides for the exercise of fundamental democratic and constitutional rights that any citizen may enjoy—the right to cast his vote in circumstances in which there is no confusion about the validity of its casting, in which there is no mix-up with any other election, and in which, in confidence and certainty, he can cast a vote for those by whom he wishes to be represented in local government or the House. It seems to me—and, I hope, the House—that the essential falseness and weakness of the proposed legislation, so far as it bears on that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland, is that it incorporates measures that are in no way induced, caused or generated by the fundamental emergency that has led to the introduction of both Bills. I hope and trust that, even at this late stage, Ministers will consider that, in relation to Northern Ireland, that is such a fundamental, democratic and constitutional issue as to require—nay, demand—a full and comprehensive debate.
4.58 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 1(1), after "on Second Reading," to leave out
"in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading".
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) will forgive me if I do not respond directly to what he said or follow on directly from his arguments. I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I say that he raised issues that disturb people like me, who are not familiar with the background in Northern Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman made points that need to be properly addressed by Ministers and which add weight to the general unease that many of us feel about the timetable motion.
My purpose in speaking is, first, to express my opposition to, and deep anxiety about, the timetable motion, and secondly, to speak to the manuscript amendment which Mr. Speaker kindly selected. My manuscript amendment is confined to the Elections Bill, not the Election Publications Bill, and would enable the House to consider all stages of the Elections Bill over two days, rather than one day. We should have Second Reading today, ending at 10 pm, and we should deal with the Committee, Report and Third Reading tomorrow, ending at a fairly late hour—say, 12 midnight. In any event, we should debate the Elections Bill over a two-day period.
The argument that we have heard from all parts of the House is that there is a need for emergency legislation. I make two observations about that. First, the fact that we may need legislation rapidly does not mean that we should pass it without proper scrutiny. Secondly, the phrase "emergency legislation" is probably not properly descriptive of what we are discussing. We are speaking of rapid legislation.
Mr. Forth: Panic legislation.
Mr. Hogg: I am speaking of rapid legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I approach the matter from different points of view. My right hon. Friend is addressing the motives of those on the Government Front Bench when he uses the phrase "panic legislation". My argument is that the legislation must be passed rapidly. We do not disagree, but I do not want to use the phrase that my right hon. Friend used.
The guillotine motion relates to two Bills. I propose to concentrate exclusively on the Elections Bill, save to say in respect of the Election Publications Bill that the fact that we shall have to consider that Bill under a timetable motion, or at all, arises because the principal legislation amended by the Election Publications Bill was itself not properly discussed. That ought to make us very chary of using the mechanism set out in the timetable motion.
I repeat the point that I made to the Home Secretary. I am a serious believer in the procedure whereby a Standing Committee can take evidence. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about a Cabinet Minister deciding as a matter of principle that all legislation introduced by that Department should be the subject of evidence taking, either through a Select Committee, which was the procedure adopted in the context of the Adoption
362
and Children Bill, or, as I would suggest—although I do not want to be dogmatic—by the Special Standing Committee procedure, which has been in place for yonks but is rarely used. It should be.
I turn to the Elections Bill and the timetable motion. We need to understand what we are discussing. As I understand the effect of the timetable motion, I think that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) misspoke himself, if he will forgive my saying so. We must finish the Second Reading and Committee stage by 9 pm. In other words, we have about four hours to go through a process which, in the ordinary course of events, would take very many hours.
That is pretty surprising, and it is not implausible to say that there is a strong presumption that it is thoroughly undesirable, too. It is all the more undesirable when one bears in mind that the Elections Bill was published only yesterday. I did not see it at all until 3.45 pm, and my constituents will not have seen it even now.
As I understand it from the Prime Minister's official spokesman, Mr. Campbell, who often seems to be in the dominant position in No. 10, until very recently, probably Monday, no work was being done on the Bill. That, by definition, means—if he was telling the truth, and I am prepared to give him credit for doing so—that no work was done, and there was no pre-drafting consultation. If he was telling the truth—let us assume that he was—it must necessarily follow that there was a lack of consultation. How could pre-drafting consultation have occurred if no work had been done? Thus the Elections Bill was published yesterday and was not the subject of consultation, but we are being asked to bang it through by 10 o'clock. That strikes me as a pretty remarkable state of affairs.
Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that, when the Government decided the adequacy of the motion, they may have been influenced by the expectation—or even intention—that no Labour Member would seek to speak during this three-hour debate? Only one of their Back Benchers—the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—has eventually had the courtesy even to attend.
Mr. Hogg: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right, to the extent that the Government Whips are trying to keep their Benches clear. He has, however, done a slight injustice to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who expressed earlier her grave anxiety about procedure such as that with which the motion deals. The House will know that the hon. Lady is deservedly of high reputation and is jealous of the reputation of the House. Her views carry weight, and it was clear that she did not like the process that we are considering. I should point out that I now see another Labour Member in the Chamber, although I do not immediately recognise him.
Having made it clear that we are engaged in a thoroughly undesirable exercise, I should like to speak in more detail. I observed that 10 groups of amendments appeared in the preliminary selection. As I have taken advice, I know that more amendments are being added to those groups, probably even as I speak. More amendments will appear on Second Reading, and perhaps in Committee. There is an ever-expanding number of

363
amendments, many of which are substantive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) tabled important amendments relating to the process for selecting a date. I tabled an amendment suggesting that the local authority elections should be delayed until the end of this year. Amendments dealing with a range of procedural matters have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by Unionist Members. I also thought that the hon. and learned Member for North Down made points of particular importance.
The plain truth is, however, that we shall consider none of those amendments. By 9 o'clock, we will barely have finished even a partial Second Reading, let alone a detailed discussion. Important amendments that Mr. Speaker has selected for consideration in relation to a Bill of constitutional importance will remain untouched. We cannot take representations or consult outside interests on the technicalities. Furthermore, my constituents cannot express a view through me to the House. I am bound to say that that is not only remarkable, but scandalous. If the legislation were absolutely essential, then all right, we could accept the need for urgency, but it is not absolutely essential.
I have provided a solution, albeit a partial one: a two-day debate. That time scale would enable us to debate Second Reading until the ordinary time—10 o'clock tonight—and take time for reflection. Perhaps the e-mail system, faxes and so on would then communicate representations of one sort or another. A more informed debate would then follow tomorrow. What on earth is wrong with that? God knows that it would be a truncated debate, but it would be a lot better than what we are now talking about.
It is nice to see the Home Secretary back in his place. He has his correspondence, so no doubt he will be signing away and looking through all the documents from the last general election which he has fished out of his attic. I shall certainly give way to him, although he found it difficult to give way to me. I note that he does not want me to give way to him. So be it; I will not do so for the moment. In any event, I expect a proper response from a Minister at the close of this debate, explaining why we cannot consider the Elections Bill over two days, and I look forward to that. If the House adopts the solution that I have recommended—a two-day debate—that will leave adequate time in this place and the other place to finish consideration of the Bill in time to allow local elections to take place on 7 June, if that is what is resolved.
I move now from the particular to the general, and I want to make five points. Most importantly, the House does not need to be treated in the way we are tonight being treated. If the Government had heeded the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), an enabling Bill would have been introduced some two or three weeks ago, and the deferment of the local elections would have been triggered by a statutory instrument provided for in that legislation. If the Government had adopted my right hon. Friend's wise suggestion, we would not have been in the jam that they tell us we are in today. The truth is that the Prime Minister dithered, talked to his political advisers, considered what was in his party's interests and made a rapid, urgent and unmeritorious decision.
364
Assuming that the Government could not have been persuaded to do what was so manifestly sensible and enact an enabling Bill, they could at least have published a draft Bill some two or three weeks ago, so that interested parties could have considered it and expressed their opinions and it could have been improved if necessary. The Government chose not to do that either.
I am not particularly in favour of late nights, but God knows I have been in this place long enough: some would say too long—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was the reaction that I expected from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst but not from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. We are perfectly capable of sitting late when necessary, and if we must, we should. We have done so on many occasions during this Parliament, albeit when it has suited the Government.
I remember, for example, the proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill, fathered by the Home Secretary. It may have been a great Bill, but I thought it was lousy. I have a lot to say about it, but I said it at 11, 12 and 1 o'clock, which was a perfectly sensible time to say it. We could sit late if we really wanted to. The fact that we are not doing so raises serious questions about the propriety of what we are doing.
I have also tabled another manuscript amendment. It has not been selected, but I can make my point none the less. The Bill—I refer to the Elections Bill, not the Election Publications Bill—refers to England, Wales and Northern Ireland; it does not refer to Scotland, so why should Members who represent Scottish constituencies vote on the Bill? It is no conceivable business of theirs. It is the business of Northern Ireland Members and Welsh Members, although I do not see one here, and it is certainly our business.
Mr. Straw: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a similar view, even privately, when the Bill to establish a poll tax in Scotland alone came before the House? Did he say that the Bill should be voted on only by Scottish Members?
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the essential consequences of devolution. Before devolution, ours was a unitary state, whereas since devolution, affairs in Scotland have been explicitly and exclusively the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I shall not proceed with this line of argument, Madam Speaker. Even the Home Secretary will understand the folly of his intervention.
My amendment to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on the Bill has not been accepted. However, it is within the Home Secretary's competence to advise those of his colleagues who come from Scottish constituencies that it would not be inappropriate for them to vote, and I hope that he will do so.
Mr. Bercow: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right in supposing that the reason why the Government do not want to sit late is that most Ministers and Labour Members cannot wait to scurry home to consume their Ovaltine and tuck themselves up as early as possible. Does he acknowledge that one of the main bases of Government objection to his tabled amendment is that if debate took place over two days, and so continued

365
throughout tomorrow, it would gravely affront the Minister for the Cabinet Office and her colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, who want to push through that wretched constitutional monstrosity called the Regulatory Reform Bill?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend may well be right, but I have never consulted the interests of the Minister for the Cabinet Office—and she has never consulted mine either. We are at least ad idem on that.
There is a legitimate discussion about whether local government elections should be held on 7 June or at some other date. I believe that they should be held at a later date: probably in the middle or latter part of October, by which time foot and mouth will certainly be under control. It is doubtful that the disease will be under control by June. It is absolutely clear that if—with the exception of Northern Ireland—local government elections are to be deferred because of foot and mouth, we should be able to receive representations from our constituents and other interested groups before fixing on the date of 7 June.
The guillotine and the procedure that we are adopting prevent us from hearing the technical and other arguments about an appropriate date. I may be right or wrong in saying that the appropriate date is October, not June, but I would feel much happier if the House had had proper time to receive representations from constituents who are most affected by these matters.
I am against the motion, and if it is pushed to a Division I shall vote against it. In any event, I am strongly in favour of my amendment, which would enable the House to consider the Elections Bill over two days. If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if I am so enabled, I shall call a Division on that amendment.
5.19 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I support the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his amendment. I want to confine my remarks to the implications of having only one hour in which to discuss the Election Publications Bill. At least the Elections Bill will be discussed in the other place. I hope that the other place will be more intent on scrutinising it than it was on scrutinising the Election Publications Bill.
The Home Secretary used that fact against us. He said that the other place spent only 23 minutes discussing the Election Publications Bill. I doubt very much that the other place would have spent only 23 minutes discussing the Bill had it known that the House of Commons would be allowed only one hour in which to discuss all its stages. That arrangement is without precedent: it is constitutionally outrageous, and it shows that we have an increasingly tyrannical Government.
The fact that the Home Secretary had to use a wholly specious precedent in a lame attempt to prop up his case reveals how desperate he is. He cited the precedent—as he described it—of the 1989 Gaming (Amendment) Bill. Because I do not take everything that the Home Secretary says at face value, I then slipped out of the Chamber and went to the Library to look up the history of that Bill. In fact it is the Gaming (Amendment) Act 1990, which was introduced in the House of Lords as a private Member's Bill in 1990.
366
The Bill was debated in the House of Lords, where its Second Reading took place on 15 February. It was introduced by Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The Committee stage took place in the House of Lords on 1 March; there was a formal Report stage on 22 March, and Third Reading took place on 2 April in the House of Lords. The Bill then came to the House of Commons, where it was given a formal Second Reading on 8 June. It is true that it was not debated; there was a vote, and it was allowed a Second Reading. Significantly, however, there was then time for Members of the House of Commons to decide whether they wanted to table amendments, because the Bill was considered again on 6 July. As no amendments had been tabled and there was no discontent with the Bill, it passed into law. That is a very different proposition from what we are discussing now.
In a throwaway line, the Home Secretary—again, perhaps badly briefed—said he assumed that the Gaming (Amendment) Act must have been of much greater concern to many more people than the Election Publications Bill. The Gaming (Amendment) Act, however, refers only to the narrow issue of applications for casino licences. I submit that many more people are interested in the imprints of election literature than are interested in that subject.
Mr. Straw: I too will go to the Library, but I have been informed that the 1990 Gaming (Amendment) Bill was different from the 1989 Bill.
Mr. Chope: Indeed, because the 1989 Bill does not exist. Taking what the Home Secretary had said at face value, I asked the Librarian to look up the 1989 Bill. When he could not find it, I said "I am sure it must be there, because the Home Secretary has said it is there." We looked at the books and there was nothing, so we then thought that the date must be wrong—and indeed the date is 1990. I do not know what disciplinary action the Home Secretary wishes to take against those who advised him. Perhaps he will take full responsibility: in fact, I am sure that he will.
There is a serious point here. If we have only an hour in which to debate the Bill from beginning to end, how will we have a chance to conduct research and investigate the accuracy of arguments deployed by the Government in support of their legislation—and how will those outside have a chance to discuss the issues and verify what Ministers say?
I am sure that the Home Secretary spoke in good faith, but he is man enough to admit that he made a fundamental error in referring to the 1989 Gaming (Amendment) Bill. I hope that it will not be used again as a specious precedent for even more draconian curtailments of debate.
In any event, the Election Publications Bill is unusual because clause 2 is effectively a Henry VIII clause giving the Home Secretary absolute power to amend primary legislation in the form of section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. [Interruption.]
Mr. Bercow: It is important that the sedentary chunterings of the Home Secretary should be placed

367
firmly on the record. Did I hear the Home Secretary correctly when he said a moment ago that the Bill was "scarcely draconian"?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please address the Chair?
Mr. Bercow: I apologise profusely. There was no intentional discourtesy. Did my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) hear, as I did, the Home Secretary say that the measure was "scarcely draconian"? If he did—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is signalling that he heard it—can he tell me what exactly the Home Secretary would regard as draconian?
Mr. Chope: Once we have got to the stage of saying that we can deal with Government legislation in the House by forcing it through within one hour, without any chance to debate it further, that is draconian.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for raising the matter. He is right: I did say that the Bill was scarcely draconian. I was also muttering that Draco was the chief magistrate in Athens in the 7th century BC. The reason why he is remembered is because he introduced capital punishment for virtually every criminal offence.
Mr. Forth: An excellent man.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says that Draco was an excellent man. That is not a tradition that I have sought to follow in any particular whatever. Nor do I believe that one can in any sense describe the Bill, which is about election publications, as within the compass of what Draco had in mind when he gave his name to an immortal adjective.
Mr. Chope: The Home Secretary is desperately trying to argue the point. He says that the Bill is scarcely draconian. What he is saying is that it is not very draconian—not by his standards. We will see what sort of punishment regime is in operation when some of his hon. Friends seek to try to divide the House or vote against the legislation, particularly the timetable motion. We will see whether he wishes to impose the equivalent of capital punishment on their parliamentary careers. I suspect that that is exactly what he and his friends have in mind.
The Bill, the debate on which is to be limited to one hour, is unusual not just because it has a Henry VIII clause, but because it seeks to keep on the statute book two sets of laws. The helpful note produced by the Library says:
"The Election Publications Bill [HL] is fairly unusual in that it ensures that both the pre-16 February and the post-16 February provisions of s110 are in effect in force at the same time. It is also unusual because it does not result from a court case or new legal advice where the interpretation of the law has been brought into question, but simply by the inability of certain political parties"—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now debating the content of the Bill, rather than the motion that is before us.
Mr. Chope: I am seeking not to debate the content of the Bill, but to explain why we should have the chance to
368
debate the content of the Bill. It is an unusual Bill. It is without precedent and deserves proper scrutiny. If I had been attempting at this stage to read the whole of the Election Publications Bill briefing from the Library, obviously, I would be out of order. All I am saying is that the Bill, on which the Government are trying to curtail debate, is very unusual. We should have proper scrutiny.
I am very worried by the Home Secretary's remark that it would not have been necessary to curtail debate on the Election Publications Bill if it had not been made clear that there was some opposition to it among Conservative Members. I think that he meant that someone—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—had had the temerity to table an amendment.
The Bill was on the Order Paper for debate on Monday, and there was ample time to scrutinise it then. There is no reason to suspect that the Chair would not have allowed a closure motion at a reasonable time if it seemed that the debate was being prolonged unnecessarily. I came to the House on Monday prepared to debate the substance of the Bill, and now we will have only a very short time to raise matters of concern.
It is wholly unnecessary to treat us in this way. The Home Secretary seems to take the view that the whole purpose of Parliament is for Front Benchers to come to agreements and push everyone else out of the equation. What future role do Back Benchers have if debate is so curtailed that there is time only for speeches from the Front Benches before the guillotine falls? We are getting to that stage, and it is very serious indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has been assiduous in ensuring that private Members' legislation is properly scrutinised. If one were to apply to such legislation the precedent that the Government are now setting, we might have six or 10 one-hour Second Reading debates on a Friday. The Government might find that rather uncomfortable, because it could give Back Benchers more power to introduce legislation. Fridays might then become rather more burdensome for them.
If it is reasonable for a Second Reading debate on a Bill covering quite a narrow issue to run from 9.30 to 2.30 on a Friday, why is it necessary to restrict to one hour the debate on a significant Bill that is retrospective, contains a Henry VIII clause and sets the intriguing precedent of putting two contradictory pieces of legislation on the statute book at the same time? This is appalling, and I strongly oppose it.
5.33 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland Members and our constituents are in a very difficult position. The Elections Bill has sprung from the womb of the tragedy that has afflicted the larger part of the United Kingdom—the foot and mouth plague—but we do not have that plague in Northern Ireland. The plague can be isolated, and the European Community has declared Northern Ireland plague-free, except for one local government area.
The Bill has been introduced to postpone elections because of foot and mouth, but there is no ground for that whatever in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland are enraged by the fact that the Bill is almost wholly concerned with us: there are a couple of lines on England and Wales, then on page 2 we find the clause

369
heading "Postponement of local elections in Northern Ireland". Schedule 1, on page five, also deals with Northern Ireland. Almost the whole Bill deals with Northern Ireland.
For some reason or other, local government elections that could have been held on 16 May will not be held on that date but postponed to a date to be chosen on which both elections can be held. If we in Northern Ireland had ever heard of such a proposal, perhaps we would have treated this Bill with more respect. There has been a large argument in Northern Ireland about when local elections should be held.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time motion?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am making the point that I object to the guillotine because it is part of a solution to a situation that did not need to arise. It is legitimate for me to make that very special point, as my colleague the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) did in his speech. That is what I am seeking to do.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who is now in control of the Treasury Bench—knows the discussions that he has had in past months on local government elections. Those discussions have had nothing whatsoever to do with the foot and mouth plague. Two parties in Northern Ireland—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—want something to be done about those local government elections. One party—the First Minister—wanted the elections to be postponed for a long time, perhaps one or two years. It did not suit him to consult the people because the people would have rejected what he said. He therefore decided, "Let us postpone them. They are going to be unpleasant for me."
The First Minister's Deputy wanted something to be done about the elections, but he did not want to be so drastic. As the two parties could not agree, they could not present an agreement to the Government. However, they decided to propose that both elections should be held on the same day, as they felt that that would be a great advantage to them. Therefore, the House is being asked to pass this Bill not because of foot and mouth disease—according to Europe, which seems to be the supreme potentate in these matters, there is no foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland—but because the Government have decided that we shall go with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who feel that it would be good to delay the elections.
Hon. Members will notice, however, that not one Ulster Unionist Member is in the Chamber. Ulster Unionist Members do not want what their leader wants; they do not want it at all. Therefore, they have not attended the debate, although they may attend for debate on Second Reading, if we have time for that.
The Minister is smiling graciously because he knows all of that very well. He and my party had long meetings on the matter. I am holding a very long letter on the matter that I sent to the Prime Minister. I am glad that, yesterday, I mentioned in the House that I had not received a reply to it from the Prime Minister because, this morning, I received a hand-delivered reply from him. I will bear that in mind in future when he does not reply to my letters.
370
No decent democrat could agree with some of the Bill's provisions. Even the Alliance party is opposed to the Bill. Although it is one of the pro-agreement parties, it cannot stomach the Bill, which strikes at—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the Bill's content, but the allocation of time for considering it.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Should we not have time to discuss a matter that cuts across basic democracy? I happen to believe in free elections. I happen to believe that, when the boxes are opened, they should be scrutinised by the candidates and by the scrutineers. I lost my first election because an election box went missing. I would have been elected had the box been found. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) lost the election in the Mid-Ulster constituency because of fraud. Everyone admitted that there was fraud in that election, even members of the Social Democratic and Labour party.
The Bill under consideration provides a way for fraud to be carried out. Interestingly enough, it used to be that the electoral officer had to perform certain duties when votes were counted. The Bill does not require him to do anything. The word used is "may", rather than "shall". He cannot be forced to do anything. That cuts at the heart of democracy.
What is more, scrutineers and candidates will be prevented from seeing the boxes opened for the first time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the programme motion will allow insufficient time to represent the interests of the thousands of people in Ulster who vote for him and his party?
Rev. Ian Paisley: There will be no time for that. Once debate on this motion is complete, we will move on to the next motion. I have been told that perhaps one person from my party will be able to make a short speech, and then it will be all over. We have gone through the Bill and have tabled amendments to it. I do not want to raise this matter continually, but my party has been treated shamefully in not being told about the Bill. We have received an apology for that.
When we were eventually told about the Bill, we were given a draft version. I went to the Vote Office and asked for all the relevant Acts, but the office could not supply them, so I was not able to give full consideration to all the papers mentioned in the Bill. I had to wait until late last night before I got the necessary papers.
How could I have had time to look at all the papers? I worked hard on the matter, and discovered that one of the papers—Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001—could not be found because it does not exist. The Vote Office wrote to me, stating:
"The N. I. Office have informed us that there is no such act as the Elections (N.I.) Act 2001."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I thank the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for giving way. His normal eagle-eyed scrutiny has revealed a drafting mistake in the Bill. If he looks at the amendments selected for debate, he will note that the Government have

371
[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland] tabled an amendment to put the matter right. We spotted the error as well, but of course the resources available to us are far greater than those available to him.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister is not revealing all the facts. He spotted the problem because he received a letter from the Vote Office. However, the argument remains the same.
I represent, both here and in Europe, more people in Northern Ireland than are represented by any other hon. Member. My party represents a majority of the Unionist electorate. It is right for me to tell the House that I must oppose the guillotine. We cannot reasonably discuss a matter when there is no time to consider it. The relevant parliamentary offices lack the necessary information, and the Minister is forced to reveal that a drastic mistake had been made.
There have been two drastic mistakes. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, said yesterday in the House, Northern Ireland representatives have been unable to get hold of the papers in time. When we finally got them, a paper that was not relevant held up the supply of the other papers.
The people of Northern Ireland cannot be expected to ask us to ram this measure through, because it is not needed. We could go ahead and have our elections on 16 May. It is a terrible thing when politicians are afraid of an election result. What is more, the Bill opens the way for cheating and fraud on the part of every criminal in the country. All they have to do is run down one motorbike rider carrying a bundle of votes from one station to the other. If those votes are lost, the whole election has to be declared null and void. The Minister knows that there are people in Northern Ireland who would do that gladly. If the big bomb in Londonderry yesterday had exploded it would have blown up many police officers, so we know that that is a reality.
How could the Government expect me to say, "Go ahead, rush it through."? I must make my protest. I have found it very difficult to do so. I was held up yesterday because I was told that I was out of order. I know that there will be no time to speak on Second Reading today, so I am making my point strongly now.
There is no need for the Bill. Northern Ireland does not have foot and mouth disease, according to the European Union, which is the supreme potentate. It examines the innards of the animals and declare whether they are clean or unclean. It has taken the place of the Aaronic priesthood. As Europe has declared Northern Ireland clean, we should be able to hold the local government elections on the proper day without any change.
5.47 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: We must surely have reached the depths of parliamentary despair—the slough of parliamentary despond—in the point to which the Government have brought us today. I follow in the spirit of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and strongly support his amendment.
We must ask ourselves why we, as the House of Commons and a Parliament, are in this intolerable position. The reason is that we are caught between the
372
vacillation of the Prime Minister and the arbitrary date of the Easter recess, which has been decided, essentially, by the Government. The Prime Minister is the Government—no other part of the Government appears to function in any sense—and even he cannot make up his mind. The one thing that the Government have decided on, to which the House has agreed, is the date of the Easter recess.
The Government have said that these two rather grubby Bills must be passed immediately, with no effective scrutiny or consideration. Why? Because of the indecision of the Government, who, nevertheless, have a mysterious ability to decide positively about the date of the Easter recess. We cannot therefore have the proper time normally available for considering a Bill of this kind.
The Home Secretary tried to draw an analogy with the deliberations in another place. I have always thought it proper and good for the two Houses of Parliament to take a completely different view of the way in which they deal with legislation. Therefore, the fact that the members of another place saw fit to allow one of the Bills to go through quickly, without much debate and without amendment, is neither here nor there. It is for this House to decide how it will deal with matters. The fact that the Election Publications Bill was originally on Monday's Order Paper and that the Chairman of Ways and Means kindly accepted and selected my amendment to the Bill—since when another amendment has been tabled and selected—suggests that this House was looking at the Bill in a very different way from the other place. For the Home Secretary to come along and say, "The Lords let it go through very quickly and therefore so should the Commons" is a distressing example of a misunderstanding by the right hon. Gentleman of the way in which Parliament works. I should have thought that he was on top of these things, but it seems that he has slipped of late. He now apparently says that if something happens in another place, it should happen here. I refute that argument.
The Home Secretary tried to suggest that there was a precedent. I asked whether there was a precedent for a Government, under a guillotine, seeking to restrict all stages of a public Bill to one hour. He came up with a precedent that was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) demonstrated, a spurious and unlike example. In other words, there is no precedent. Yet again the Government are breaking new parliamentary ground by having the gall and arrogance to say that the law of the land should be made after one hour's consideration in total by the House of Commons. That is the prospect which we face tonight, and it is surely unacceptable.
Let us take a different approach, again following the spirit of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Why could we not sit later tonight? Presumably, it is because the babes on the Labour Benches do not want to be here too late. They do not feel that it is right to be detained at a late hour to do something as trivial as legislating, scrutinising or holding the Government to account. The delicate babes on the Government Benches feel that it is inappropriate to be delayed overlong in the House of Commons. Surely if it is a matter of emergency—which I doubt—and a matter of panic, which it certainly is for

373
the Government, they could say to their babes, "Can't you just stay a bit late for one night to allow us to consider the matter?"
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is surely aware that that is not the language that we expect to be used in the Chamber in reference to hon. Members.
Mr. Forth: I am sorry if I have offended the delicacy of Labour Members. I shall try to remember that I should address them as honourable but largely absent Members. That perhaps would be a more accurate description of them. I shall try to remember to use it in future.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend expresses himself in his customarily restrained and understated fashion with which the House is familiar. While I do not in any way dissent from the important point that he has made in his emollient style, may I ask whether he agrees that another reason that the Government do not want substantial debate on this matter any more than on any other is that they know that most of the people who would contribute to the debate from the Back Benches, including their own, would be potent speakers largely critical of the Government? Surely my right hon. Friend accepts that what the Government want is for their Back Benchers to be craven lickspittles of the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Forth: The Government may already have achieved that objective early in this Parliament. The point is whether those who are still keen on our role of scrutinising and attempting to hold to account should be given a proper opportunity so to do.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has selected a large number of amendments and a new clause which are deemed to be suitable and appropriate for debate and consideration by the House. They cover some important matters, and they have been tabled by members of more than one political party. As Northern Ireland Members have said, the amendments bear substantially on matters that are the proper concern of Northern Ireland.
So we have on the one hand the Government's self-imposed need or desire to deal with the matter in the most peremptory and panicky fashion and on the other the acknowledgement by the Chairman of Ways and Means that legitimate amendments have been tabled, even to the extent that the manuscript amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has been selected. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there may be further amendments to come. Against that background, the Government say that the amount of time available to the House is to be arbitrarily and unnecessarily restricted to 10 o'clock this evening, in the case of the Elections Bill. That has been done for no given reason. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the matter must be dealt with by 10 o'clock this day and why it must be dealt with on this day in any case.
The Elections Bill will have to go to another place. One asks whether the normal period will be allowed to elapse between the end of consideration by the House of Commons and when the other place is asked to pick it up. I should have thought that that was an important consideration. As far as I know, the House of Lords will sit tomorrow. It could sit on Friday, if it is not already
374
due to do so. It will almost certainly sit on Monday and Tuesday. There is ample scope for the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to be accommodated, or even to go further and allow more time for consideration. No reason has been given in the case of the Elections Bill, never mind an adequate or acceptable one, for the deadline of 10 o'clock this evening, or for allowing only one day's consideration of a Bill to which a large number of amendments and new clauses have already been selected.
When it comes to the Election Publications Bill, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch spoke a moment ago, and to which I am happy to say that my own modest amendment has been selected, the waters get murkier. It is a grubby little Bill introduced with an even grubbier all-party consensus to conceal some all-party cock-ups. What worse motivation could there be for changing the law of the land? I shall hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and expose the Bill for what it truly is. This is not the time or the place to do so.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: If time is so crucial, why are we wasting three hours in debating the programme motion?
Mr. Forth: What a typical and representative view from a Government Member. They think that the debate is a waste of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. A Government Member who has drifted into the Chamber opines that the debate is all basically a waste of time. Nothing could sum up better the attitude of—I was going to say new Labour, but I will not insult the hon. Gentleman by using that label. I do not think that he would welcome it. A senior member of the Labour party and a generally respected Member of the House gives us his view that the debate is a waste of time. I am sure that if you shared that view, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would have put a stop to it long ago. This is an important debate, and one that I can well see that the Government want to shut down or ideally avoid altogether.
I will not say more on the Election Publications Bill at this stage, and I may not be able to say much later because the Government have allowed only one hour to change the law of the land—one hour in total for the House of Commons to consider a matter of widespread interest. Were I to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would refer briefly to the reasons given for the Bill in its brief passage through another place. They reveal some interesting aspects of it, but this is not the occasion on which to do any such thing. Suffice it to say that there are several reasons why the House should reject the motion, not least that one hour in total for consideration of a Bill is utterly unacceptable and outrageous. It is without precedent because the Home Secretary and all the might of his Department were unable to produce a precedent.
Unless I am contradicted by the Minister, this is new ground. This is something that has not happened before. Law is being made by a Government imposing themselves on the House of Commons and saying that all stages of a Bill must be completed in one hour. Let us understand what that means. Let us say—I was going to say 659 Members of Parliament, but I will exclude the

375
payroll—instead, let us say that more than 500 Members of Parliament may wish to speak. They will be given a total of one hour—
Mr. Don Foster: Or less.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman reminds me that Divisions could reduce that time. I am being generous to the Government. I said that it is just possible that there will be as much as one hour for debate, but, of course, it could be 45 minutes or even less.
Mr. Pike: It could be more.
Mr. Forth: It certainly could be, if the hon. Gentleman's dearest wish were granted and we completed consideration of the Elections Bill before 10 o'clock this evening. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman suggests that we get through 50 amendments before 10 o'clock, so that we can get on to the Election Publications Bill earlier than that.
Mr. Pike: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but we could have started debate on the Elections Bill at 3.40 pm, so we could have had much more time on it.
Mr. Forth: Of course. If we debated nothing at all in the House, we could all go home immediately. That is the logic of the position increasingly taken by Labour Members.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In support of my right hon. Friend's argument, has he considered the fact that, earlier, the Home Secretary advised the House that it might be a good idea if, on certain matters, we followed the other place? Has my right hon. Friend considered that Her Majesty's Government apparently anticipate that the other place will consider the Elections Bill for two days—continuing into next week?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. However, we do not know it officially—it is not public knowledge. In any case, I do not think that should alter our attitude to our consideration of the Bill. The fact that Members in another place saw fit to deal with the Election Publications Bill in a few minutes is a matter for them—properly. However, I see it differently in this place. My hon. Friend's helpful advice does not alter by one iota my view of the motion or of the Bills.
Mr. Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman might reflect further on the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Although Members in another place have longer to discuss the Bill, they will not be allowed to discuss matters relating to its financial consequences. They have thus been given a significantly longer time to deal with far less.
Mr. Forth: That is so. What makes it all worse is that, according to the section of the motion headed "Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill", the Government suggest that, if their lordships are wise enough to make amendments to the Bill, we shall then be given one hour to consider those amendments
376
when the Bill comes back to this place. I hope that amendments will be made in the other place, because we certainly shall not have time to amend the Bill, based on the admirable selection made by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I hope that their lordships scrutinise the measure carefully and amend it—I doubt that we shall have the opportunity to do so. It will then be interesting to see what we do during the one hour that the Government are allocating for our consideration of the Lords amendments that I hope will be made. The viciousness of the motion is compounded the further one looks ahead to future proceedings.
The combination of the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends and my own modest contribution should surely be enough to persuade the House to reject the motion. I hope that we shall accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, although I do not think that it goes far enough. However, it certainly goes in the right direction, so I am prepared to support it. I hope, too, that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), will at least attempt to answer some of the many questions that have been put. Before we decide how we will vote, he will have one last chance to persuade us—as his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary failed to do—that the motion is appropriate, acceptable and proper.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Forth: I am about to conclude, but I will give way to my hon. Friend once more.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's generosity of spirit invariably gets the better of him—as Members on both sides are well aware. I invite him to consider this rather simple, prosaic but, I hope, valid point: does he not think that it is significant that during this afternoon's debate, one lacuna in the Bill has already been identified and that the Home Secretary has made a mess of matters in respect of gaming legislation? As we have found two Government errors in the space of two and a half hours, is it not reasonable to anticipate that the danger of the procedure recommended by the Government is that several further errors will be discovered—but only when it is too late?
Mr. Forth: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says; it would certainly be too late in this place, if the House passes the motion—as I fear we must anticipate. The Government will wheel in the terracotta army; they will go through the Lobby—I was going to say "like sheep", but that might be rather an unfortunate description at present—and, no doubt, the motion will be passed. However, I can hold out this hope to my hon. Friend: the more errors, lacunae and cock-ups that are identified in the Bill at present—we have already had a hint of some and, no doubt, more will emerge during the next few hours—the greater will be the incentive for another place to look at length and in depth at the matter, in order to carry out the job that we have been denied the opportunity to do. That is my fervent hope.
6.5 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I am shocked by the motion. The proposed legislation is extremely complicated. My reading of the selection made by the Chairman of Ways and Means is that 50 amendments will be discussed during different stages in the passage of the Bill. It will be completely impossible for the House to give those amendments proper consideration. How can we think otherwise than that politics is in disrepute if the House is treated in that manner?
In this week's edition of The House magazine, I read the thoughts of some Members who will be leaving the House at the next general election and was struck by the fact that all of them said that the House had changed—and changed for the worse—and that Parliament was being treated with contempt. Yesterday, I held a conversation in the Corridor with a Cabinet Minister, who shall be nameless. I said, "I was pleased to see you sitting in the Chamber for a few minutes earlier, because it's good to see Cabinet Ministers supporting their junior Ministers—if only briefly—when legislation is going through the House, but you weren't there for very long". To which the Cabinet Minister replied, "I can't sit in there, we have a country to run".
Surely, the place for elected Members of Parliament and Ministers is in the House, if they can find the time to be here. It is shocking that the Government routinely introduce timetable motions on significant issues that should be debated at some length
Sometimes, we are accused of creating artificial obstacles and of seeing artificial problems when we urge that legislation should be given more time. However, on many occasions during my long period of membership of the House, constituents and others have written to me at, perhaps, Third Reading stage or even when legislation has been passed, pointing out that they had not appreciated the significance of the measure and asking us to do something about it. Quite often, the answer is, "No, we can't do anything about it, because it has already been passed."
The individual Members of Parliament who contribute to debates on measures are not the only people who should be part of the discussion process. There should be a decent interval between the introduction of a Bill, its consideration on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and Third Reading, so that people outside the House who may be affected by the legislation have a decent opportunity to consider it, discuss it with others who are concerned and to make representations through their Members of Parliament. My experience is that legislation is often improved by the representations made by trade associations, by individuals and by bodies such as the Hansard Society, who are concerned about our democracy.
I am not aware that any of my colleagues has urged that we should rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday. Like other hon. Members, I receive criticism about the long Easter break—I see no reason for such a long break. I see no reason, either, for legislation to be pushed through in such a precipitate manner. It is bad government and the Government should be ashamed of pushing the measure through so hurriedly. In my experience, that will lead to mistakes that we shall regret. The Government should be ashamed that they have introduced the motion.
6.10 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In winding up for the official Opposition on this important debate on the Government's extraordinary guillotine, I should like to start by looking back at what has led them to introduce such a panic guillotine motion. I go back just a couple of weeks to 21 March, when, at Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) asked:
"having the option to delay some local elections requires legislation quickly, is the Prime Minister absolutely sure that he will not regret later doing nothing now?"
The Prime Minister's response was very interesting, and all hon. Members ought to be remember it. He said:
"I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman this: postpone until when? For one month, two months, six months?"—[Official Report, 21 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 338.]
Only a fortnight later, the Government have moved this extraordinary guillotine motion, seeking to curtail debate in a way that will, as so many hon. Members have said, lead to all the most significant parliamentary scrutiny being squeezed into no more than an hour.
When the Home Secretary moved the guillotine motion he gave a discursive and long preamble, which revealed only too clearly to all Opposition Members how embarrassed he is. We know perfectly well that he was one, in common with almost all the Cabinet, who said that he did not want to delay the local elections. There is no doubt that his reluctance to deal with the specific guillotine and the fact that he spent the vast bulk of his speech talking about other guillotines in earlier Parliaments—as the Official Report will confirm—reveals, once again, how uncomfortable he is at having to move a guillotine that he never wanted to introduce.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out all the inconsistencies in the Government's position. She rightly said that there is no justification whatever for this outrageous and absurd guillotine motion. As she said, it will hinder the interests of democracy and those of our constituents, who sent us here in the first place to hold the Government to account and to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament are in good order, well thought through and properly scrutinised.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, supports the official Opposition and shares our concerns. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) raised particular concerns about how the truncated debate on the Bill will affect Northern Ireland.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in moving his amendment, which we on the official Opposition Front Bench support, wanted to ensure that this constitutional measure receives proper debate and scrutiny. He made an extremely powerful and, in intellectual terms, an unanswerable case, as he does so often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the opportunities that there should be to debate matters properly on Second Reading, as well as managing to catch out the Home Secretary on one of several errors in some gaming legislation, for which the right hon. Gentleman gave the wrong date.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) set out the difficulties that he has with the Elections Bill. As he rightly said, the circumstances are very different in

379
Northern Ireland, because of the different election dates and the fact that, happily, foot and mouth does not currently affect the Province. Even more significantly, he spotted a drafting error, which the Public Bill Office had to point out to the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said in a powerful intervention, two errors have emerged during this short debate—one in the drafting of the measure, which refers to a non-existent Act, and the other when the Home Secretary referred to the wrong legislation in the wrong year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in his usual powerful contribution, there are particular dangers in the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to the need for decent intervals between the stages of any Bill, so that those outside the House can contribute their thoughts and reactions.
I was considering which factor of the Government's attitude to this guillotined Bill was particularly relevant to the debate. I was reminded that so many Opposition Members have regarded this Government's version of elective dictatorship, their bypassing of all democratic scrutiny and their contempt for the House as Orwellian. It is perhaps especially important to remember one of George Orwell's greatest works. It is sadly redolent of a debate on the introduction of emergency legislation under a tight guillotine because of a foot and mouth epidemic affecting animals. It is, of course, "Animal Farm".
All hon. Members will remember that Napoleon, the leader of the pigs, changed the rules under which the others operated. Instead of "two legs bad, four legs good", as the pigs became more human, the slogan became "two legs better". That is precisely what the Government are doing in their guillotine. They interpret words in the way that suits them. They have a complete contempt for Parliament and all democratic scrutiny, and they change the rules as they go along. Truly, this is an Orwellian Government and this is an appalling guillotine, of which any Government should be ashamed.
6.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): We should remind ourselves that we are having this debate because of the concern, which is shared on both sides of the House, about the great suffering being caused to so many by foot and mouth disease and about the proper democratic process, of which elections are, of course, a central part. I think that that is agreed, but we find ourselves in a situation that is almost without precedent.
Frankly, postponing local elections is not a step that any of us takes lightly, but we have introduced a Bill that is generally acknowledged to be in the national interest. It is a matter of urgency because the elections were due to take place in England and Wales and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, during May. So we must ensure that there is clarity for the candidates who are standing in those elections and for the councils, which need to make the necessary arrangements for the elections and for what happens afterwards.
The need for clarity is one of the reasons why we introduced the allocation of time motion. If this House and the other place do not pass the Bill, what we shall
380
have is an aspiration, rather than clarity about what should definitely happen. That argument must be weighed in the balance and taken seriously.
I want to comment on the argument used by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who opened the debate for the official Opposition. As she is well aware, I personally have some affection for her. Nevertheless, she occasionally has the capacity to go somewhat over the top, and others have commented on that trait. I do not think that I shall be misrepresenting her if I say that the burden of her argument, as I understood it, was that both Bills involve enormously important constitutional matters and, as such, should not be subject to a timetable motion at all. That was mote or less the burden of her speech. Indeed, she was supported by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who is sitting next to her, who complained, on behalf of the Opposition, about a lack of consultation.
Let me examine the points that the right hon. Lady made and explain what we are doing. The Election Publications Bill will do precisely what the Conservative party requested we do. On 16 March, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is described in the letter as the chief executive and registered treasurer of the Conservative party, and his letter concludes:
"I look forward to hearing from you and I know that you will understand the urgency of this matter."
The subject is a matter of urgency and the chief executive and registered treasurer of the Conservative party recognises that the matter not only needs addressing, but needs addressing urgently. Those were his words.
Miss Widdecombe: Is the Minister not confusing two issues: the urgency and speed with which a Bill should be introduced and the degree of speed with which it should be carried through the House? There is common ground that both Bills had to be introduced with great urgency, but the common ground breaks up because we believe that great urgency should not be used as an excuse for no scrutiny.
Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Lady has set out an argument and is determined to maintain it in all circumstances. That is an understandable debating position to take. However, she should have listened carefully to what I said a moment ago. I said that political parties, local authorities, candidates and agents and everyone involved in the electoral process needed clarity. If we are to have clarity, it is urgent not only that we address the issue but that we get provisions on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
Mr. Forth rose—
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Howarth: I want to develop my point, but I shall give way in a minute I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to exercise a little patience.
Let me explain the purpose behind the Election Publications Bill. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 introduced new requirements for

381
the posters, leaflets and so on that political parties and others use in campaigns. Those new requirements were brought into effect, along with the main provisions of the Act relating to election spending and donations, from 16 February 2001. With hindsight, that was too soon for the particular provisions covered by the Election Publications Bill. Political parties and candidates all over the country were left with insufficient time to rework their election material. They are very familiar, as we all are, with the old requirements and it is right that they should be allowed to work to those requirements for a period.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that that is an important constitutional change. It is not—the Bill will put right a problem that emerged as a result of the outworkings of the Act. That is all that we are doing.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristic courtesy in giving way. If the matter is as urgent as he says, how was it that, although the Election Publications Bill was on the Order Paper on Monday when it could have been dealt with perfectly adequately, for some mysterious reason, the Government withdrew it and have brought it back to the House two days later under a one-hour time constraint? What sort of urgency is that?
Mr. Howarth: The short answer is that, since the Bills contain some common characteristics and cover some common issues, it was considered convenient to bring them together—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will allow me to proceed, I shall come to the other point that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made.
The right hon. Lady said that the Elections Bill had major constitutional implications and suggested that debate on it should be subject to an almost open-ended procedure. As she and the House know, the Bill will delay the date of the local elections. That is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition has been asking for, and precisely what, after due consideration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided was appropriate in the national interest. To describe that as a major constitutional change leaves the right hon. Lady open to the normal accusation that is made against her—she is again guilty of hyperbole.
Mr. Hawkins: In the light of the Minister's remarks and the fact that, in another place, Baroness Jay of Paddington has allowed for two days of debate, how can he justify the fact that the Government have provided this House only the rest of this evening for debate on the Elections Bill and only one hour for the important Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned?
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the issue abundantly clear in his opening speech. Circumstances in the other place are as they are because the Opposition there are far more disciplined and better organised than they are in this House. I have a sneaking admiration for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as he well knows. However, he and one or two of his colleagues have the capacity, while remaining in order, to stretch out the business of the House to sometimes ludicrous proportions. Frankly, that point has to be factored into any considerations about the business of the House.
382
I wish to deal with some of the arguments that have been made by Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the Government were planning to combine the polls in any event and that foot and mouth disease was used to provide just another excuse. That was the burden of his argument. Two separate issues are involved, and I think that he would acknowledge that.
First, we need to take a UK-wide approach to the outbreak of foot and mouth. Therefore, to defer until June elections across the UK seems to us to make sense. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, Northern Ireland has not been foot and mouth disease free. There has been one case, but I am sure that everyone wants to keep it at that. He is chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Assembly, so I am sure that he would agree that it is important to take all the necessary precautions to ensure that Northern Ireland remains reasonably free from foot and mouth.
Secondly, although it obviously depends on when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister calls the general election, there is a case for combining the elections. The argument for combining the two polls relates to the effect on voter turnout. There is evidence that, if two polls are conducted on one day, turnout is higher. Surely that is good for democracy.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister is well aware of the regionalisation in Northern Ireland. The supremo of Europe has declared that we do not have foot and mouth disease in any council area except one. That is the legal position. He should not keep saying that we have foot and mouth disease where we do not. On voter turnout in local government elections, Northern Ireland has a good record on that compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Labour party had all those people turning out to vote, it would not be changing the law.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the turnout for local elections in Northern Ireland is far better than it is on the mainland, especially in inner-city areas in England and some wards in my constituency. My point is that it could be even higher.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Until Monday, it was a line-ball decision whether the Prime Minister would go ahead with the council elections on 3 May. Northern Ireland has had one outbreak of foot and mouth, and that was a month ago. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the disease is a relevant consideration for changing the established date in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Howarth: Had the hon. and learned Gentleman exercised a little patience, I would have addressed that issue. However, before I do, let me say that I do not want to exaggerate the problem; I accept that the level of foot and mouth is very low in Northern Ireland. I am simply trying to take notice of what people are saying about keeping it that way.
Mr. Öpik: I apologise for not being present for much of the debate. I have been dealing with problems associated with foot and mouth and have returned because we were assured that the Minister would resolve why the date is to be changed in Northern Ireland. Is he going to explain why so little time has been allocated to discuss

383
such important matters? I have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns of hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. He might have a plausible defence by pleading the problems of foot and mouth, but I am not sure that he can defend the time that has been allocated to discuss it.
Mr. Howarth: Having been candidates, all hon. Members must accept—even if they are not prepared to acknowledge it in public—that people who stand in elections for local government or Parliament need to be clear about the procedures involved. To be honest, if the Bills were not agreed to quickly, we would not have the necessary clarity.
As for foot and mouth in Northern Ireland, let me make the position clear. Only one case has been confirmed there and, as has been rightly said, the export ban has been eased. However, extensive precautions remain in place because of the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, where 5 per cent. of jobs are in agriculture compared with only 1.6 per cent. in the UK as a whole. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will be aware that the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has called for a fortress farming approach, with movement on and off farms kept to an absolute minimum. In addition, 19 road blocks are in place in and around a 10 km surveillance zone in Newry and Mourne. Although there is a low incidence of foot and mouth in Northern Ireland, the conditions that have been applied have kept it that way. Some severe restrictions on movement are still in place in the Newry and Mourne area.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister graciously giving way, especially as my constituency of Belfast, South is not greatly affected by foot and mouth. Does he acknowledge that the fortress approach is to allow Northern Ireland to maintain its disease-free status? Is he suggesting that if the election were held in Northern Ireland on 16 May, that would spread the disease? It seems to me that the only foot and mouth disease is in the Chamber today, where hon. Members are constantly putting their foot in their mouth as they mix electioneering with legislation.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the implications for his constituency. As he rightly says, it is not affected by foot and mouth, except with regard to the new date for local elections. However, restrictions are in place in Newry and Mourne. Heaven forbid that the situation should get worse in coming weeks—I do not anticipate that—but there could be additional problems.
On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), the hon. Member for North Antrim and others have raised concerns about the procedures. All arrangements for colour coding of ballot papers and so on have been considered in great detail, as has the issue of security. I am confident that measures to combat possible confusion will be implemented. In addition, the hon. Gentleman knows that the chief electoral officer goes to great lengths to ensure that ballot boxes are secure. He will continue to do that.
Mr. Grieve: I am finding it difficult to follow the Minister's logic on Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister
384
and the Home Secretary explained the postponement of local elections in England. Their reason was not that it was impossible to have free and fair elections, but that their commitment and heavy involvement in fighting the outbreak made it difficult to concentrate on holding an election. That is not the case in Northern Ireland because the outbreak is not on the same scale.
Mr. Howarth: I can only apologise if the hon. Gentleman has not been able to follow my argument. My simple point is that Northern Ireland has a low level of foot and mouth infection. We intend it to stay that way. Despite yesterday's easement, some restrictions remain in place and the change is desirable.
The Bill has a clear purpose: it postpones for a short time elections that were due to take place next month.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to be in the Chamber for most of the debate and will know that I have moved an amendment to consider the matter over two days. Will he be good enough to give the Government's response to that suggestion?
Mr. Howarth: I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.
The reasons for the course of action have been fully and responsibly set out by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. From a practical perspective, it is possible for the elections to go ahead, but that would not be right in the circumstances. The Government are acting in the best interests of the rural community, the electorate and the nation. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided. Ayes 185, Noes 320.

Division No. 177]

[6.39 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cash, William

Amess, David

Chope, Christopher

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Baldry, Tony

Ballard, Jackie

Collins, Tim

Beggs, Roy

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cotter, Brian

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cran, James

Bercow, John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Blunt, Crispin

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Body, Sir Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Duncan, Alan

Brady, Graham

Duncan Smith, Iain

Brake, Tom

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fallon, Michael

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fearn, Ronnie

Burnett, John

Flight, Howard

Burns, Simon

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Burstow, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Butterfill, John

Fox, Dr Liam

Cable, Dr Vincent

Fraser, Christopher

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gale, Roger

Garnier, Edward

385

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Nicholls, Patrick

Gibb, Nick

Norman Archie

Gidley, Sandra

Oaten, Mark

Gill, Christopher

Öpik, Lembit

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Ottaway Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Paice, James

Gray, James

Paisley, Rev Ian

Green, Damian

Paterson, Owen

Greenway, John

Pickles, Eric

Grieve, Dominic

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Prior, David

Hague, Rt Hon William

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Rendel, David

Hammond, Philip

Robathan, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Robertson Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Harvey, Nick

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hawkins, Nick

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hayes, John

Ross William (E Lond'y)

Heald, Oliver

Ruffley, David

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

St Aubyn, Nick

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Sanders, Adrian

Horam, John

Sayeed Jonathan

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Richard

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Soames, Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spring, Richard

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Keetch, Paul

Streeter, Gary

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

Stunell, Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Key, Robert

Syms, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Leigh, Edward

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Letwin, Oliver

Thompson, William

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Tredinnick, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Trend, Michael

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyler, Paul

Loughton, Tim

Tyrie, Andrew

Luff, Peter

Viggers Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Walter, Robert

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Waterson, Nigel

McCrea, Dr William

Webb, Steve

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Whittingdale, John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Wilkinson, John

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Willetts, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Willis, Phil

Madel, Sir David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Maples, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mates, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

May, Mrs Theresa

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. John Randall and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Moss, Malcolm

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Atkins, Charlotte

Ainger, Nick

Austin, John

Allen, Graham

Bailey, Adrian

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Banks, Tony

Barnes, Harry

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Barron, Kevin

Ashton, Joe

Battle, John

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bayley, Hugh

386

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Edwards, Huw

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Efford, Clive

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bennett, Andrew F

Ennis, Jeff

Benton, Joe

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Best, Harold

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Betts, Clive

Flynn, Paul

Blackman, Liz

Follett, Barbara

Blears, Ms Hazel

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Foulkes, George

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Fyfe, Maria

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Galloway, George

Bradshaw, Ben

Gapes, Mike

Brinton, Mrs Helen

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Browne, Desmond

Gerard, Neil

Buck, Ms Karen

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burden, Richard

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Burgon, Colin

Godsiff, Roger

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cann, Jamie

Grocott, Bruce

Casale, Roger

Grogan, John

Caton, Martin

Hain, Peter

Cawsey, Ian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Chaytor, David

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clapham, Michael

Hanson, David

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Healey, John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hesford, Stephen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clwyd, Ann

Hood, Jimmy

Coaker, Vernon

Hope, Phil

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cohen, Harry

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Colman, Tony

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Connarty, Michael

Howells, Dr Kim

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Jean

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cousins, Jim

Hutton, John

Cranston, Ross

Iddon, Dr Brian

Crausby, David

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jamieson, David

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jenkins, Brian

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dismore, Andrew

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Dobbin, Jim

Joyce, Eric

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Donohoe, Brian H

Keeble, Ms Sally

Doran, Frank

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Drew, David

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Drown, Ms Julia

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

387

Khabra, Piara S

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Kidney, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Prosser, Gwyn

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Purchase, Ken

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Quinn, Lawrie

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Lammy, David

Rammell, Bill

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Rapson, Syd

Laxton, Bob

Raynsford, Nick

Leslie, Christopher

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Levitt, Torn

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lock, David

Rowlands, Ted

Love, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCabe, Steve

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Sarwar, Mohammad

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Sedgemore, Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

Macdonald, Calum

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McFall, John

Shipley, Ms Debra

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McIsaac, Shona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Skinner, Dennis

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McWilliam, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Ms Rachel

Maxton, John

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Steinberg, Gerry

Merron, Gillian

Stevenson, George

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Miller, Andrew

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mitchell, Austin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moffatt, Laura

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stringer, Graham

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

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

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mudie, George

Temple-Morris, Peter

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Timms, Stephen

Norris, Dan

Todd, Mark

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Touhig, Don

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Trickett, Jon

O'Hara, Eddie

Truswell, Paul

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pearson, Ian

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Perham, Ms Linda

Tynan, Bill

Pickthall, Colin

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pike, Peter L

Walley, Ms Joan

Plaskitt, James

Ward, Ms Claire

Pollard, Kerry

Wareing, Robert N

Pond, Chris

Watts, David

Pound, Stephen

White, Brian

Powell, Sir Raymond

Wicks, Malcolm

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

388

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Worthington, Tony

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Wills, Michael

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Greg Pope.

Wood, Mike

Woodward, Shaun

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.—
The House divided. Ayes 318, Noes 179.

Division No. 178]

[6.54 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Clwyd, Ann

Ainger, Nick

Coaker, Vernon

Allen, Graham

Coffey, Ms Ann

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Cohen, Harry

Colman, Tony

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Connarty, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Corbett, Robin

Atkins, Charlotte

Corbyn, Jeremy

Austin, John

Corston, Jean

Bailey, Adrian

Cousins, Jim

Banks, Tony

Cranston, Ross

Barnes, Harry

Crausby, David

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Battle, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Bayley, Hugh

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Dalyell, Tam

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Benton, Joe

Dawson, Hilton

Bermingham, Gerald

Denham, Rt Hon John

Best, Harold

Dismore, Andrew

Betts, Clive

Dobbin, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Blears, Ms Hazel

Donohoe, Brian H

Blizzard, Bob

Doran, Frank

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Drew, David

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Drown, Ms Julia

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bradshaw, Ben

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Browne, Desmond

Edwards, Huw

Buck, Ms Karen

Efford, Clive

Burden, Richard

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burgon, Colin

Ennis, Jeff

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Follett, Barbara

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Casale, Roger

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Caton, Martin

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Cawsey, Ian

Foulkes, George

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Fyfe, Maria

Chaytor, David

Galloway, George

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gerrard, Neil

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Godsiff, Roger

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

389

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grocott, Bruce

MacShane, Denis

Grogan, John

McWalter, Tony

Hain, Peter

McWilliam, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mallaber, Judy

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marsden Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hanson, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Healey, John

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Maxton, John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hendrick, Mark

Merron, Gillian

Hepburn, Stephen

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Heppell, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hesford, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Mitchell, Austin

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Moffatt, Laura

Hood, Jimmy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hope, Phil

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

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

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Dr Kim

Mountford, Kali

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mudie, George

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Iddon, Dr Brian

Norris, Dan

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jamieson, David

Olner, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

O'Neill, Matin

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pike, Peter L

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Plaskitt, James

Joyce, Eric

Pollard, Kerry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Pond, Chris

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pound, Stephen

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Khabra, Piara S

Primarolo, Dawn

Kidney, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Quinn, Lawrie

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Rammell, Bill

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Rapson, Syd

Lammy, David

Raynsford, Nick

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Robertson, John (Glasgtow Anniesland)

Laxton, Bob

Leslie, Christopher

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Levitt, Tom

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rooney, Terry

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Linton, Martin

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ruane, Chris

Lock, David

Ruddock, Joan

Love, Andrew

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ryan, Ms Joan

McCabe, Steve

Sarwar, Mohammad

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Sawford, Phil

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Sedgemore, Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Macdonald, Calum

Shipley, Ms Debra

McFall, John

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McIsaac, Shona

Skinner, Dennis

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

390

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Truswell, Paul

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Soley, Clive

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Spellar, John

Tynan, Bill

Squire, Ms Rachel

Vis, Dr Rudi

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Walley, Ms Joan

Steinberg, Gerry

Ward, Ms Claire

Stevenson, George

Wareing, Robert N

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Watts, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

White, Brian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wicks, Malcolm

Stoate, Dr Howard

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stringer, Graham

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wills, Michael

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Wood, Mike

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Woodward, Shaun

Temple-Morris, Peter

Worthington, Tony

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Timms, Stephen

Todd, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Greg Pope.

Touhig, Don

Trickett, Jon

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Aess, David

Duncan, Alan

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Nigel

Baldry, Tony

Fabricant, Michael

Beggs, Roy

Fallon, Michael

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Feam, Ronnie

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Flight, Howard

Bercow, John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Blunt, Crispin

Fox, Dr Liam

Body, Sir Richard

Fraser, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Brady, Graham

Gibb, Nick

Brake, Tom

Gidley, Sandra

Brazier, Julian

Gill, Christopher

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gray, James

Burnett, John

Green, Damian

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John

Burstow, Paul

Grieve, Dominic

Butterfill, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Cable, Dr Vincent

Hague, Rt Hon William

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Hammond, Philip

Chope, Christopher

Hancock, Mike

Clappison, James

Harvey, Nick

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Hawkins, Nick

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hayes, John

Heald, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Cotter, Brian

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Cran, James

Horam, John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Day, Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

391

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffery

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ruffley, David

Keetch, Paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Key, Robert

St Aubyn, Nick

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Sanders, Adrian

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Sayeed, Jonathan

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Shepherd, Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lansley, Andrew

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

Leigh, Edward

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Letwin, Oliver

Soames, Nicholas

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Llwyd, Elfyn

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Loughton, Tim

Streeter, Gary

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stunell, Andrew

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Swayne, Desmond

McCrea, Dr William

Syms, Robert

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Madel, Sir David

Thompson, William

Maples, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mates, Michael

Tredinnick, David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Trend, Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Tyler, Paul

May, Mrs Theresa

Tyrie, Andrew

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Viggers, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Walter, Robert

Nicholls, Patrick

Waterson, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Webb, Steve

Oaten, Mark

Wells, Bowen

Öpik, Lembit

Whittingdale, John

Ottaway, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Paice, James

Wilkinson, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Willetts, David

Paterson, Owen

Willis, Phil

Pickles, Eric

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Prior, David

Yeo, Tim

Randall, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rendel, David

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Peter Luff and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords]—

Timing of proceedings on the Elections Bill
1.—(1) On the Elections Bill, proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock.

3. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.

2.—(l) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill:

392

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Timing of proceedings on the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
3.—(1) On the Election Publications Bill [Lords], proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock.

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; and

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Questions to be put
4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3.
(2) The Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or tinder sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill
5.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.

6.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 5.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

393

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

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

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

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

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages of the Elections Bill
7.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

8.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 7.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Elections Bill
9.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Elections Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

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

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

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

Subsequent stages of the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
10.—(1) Any Message (or further Message) from the Lords on the Election Publications Bill [Lords] shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any Message (or further Message) from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

11.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
12.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Election Publications Bill [Lords] and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

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

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

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

Miscellaneous
13.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to seven o'clock; but

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.

(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

14.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

16.—(1) The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(3) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

17. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—[Mr. Straw.]

Elections Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
7.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
During debate on the allocation of time motion, I spoke in considerable detail about the reasons not only for the guillotine, but for the introduction of the Bill. I shall not repeat those general remarks now, but it might be helpful for me briefly to speak about each of the clauses.
Clause 1 provides that the ordinary local elections that were due to take place for 34 English county councils and 11 English unitary authorities on 3 May will instead be deferred to 7 June. It also provides that any by-elections to fill casual vacancies in other local authorities will take place on 7 June, instead of during the period of deferral. As I explained to the House on Monday, it is not possible to defer by-elections that are due on Thursdays before, but not including, 3 May, as they are already too far down the track.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I realise that the Home Secretary will not tell us whether a general election will occur on 7 June. If an election were to occur on that date, however, would a by-election that had been deferred for a minor authority such as a town council take place if it was timetabled to occur at the same time? I ask that question because a town council by-election would not usually be permitted to occur on the same day as a general election.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right, as parish and town council elections are usually deferred if they are scheduled for the date of a general election. I think that they are delayed for a period of two or three weeks. I was going to explain the related provision later in my speech, but I shall say now that clause 7, which deals with consequential provision, allows orders to be made to enable town or parish council elections to occur notwithstanding the circumstances that he describes.
We have done the best trawl that we can, and it happens that very few parish or town council elections are occurring this year, as they do not usually occur in the same year as shire county elections. There are one or two areas in which new town councils are being established, and there are also some by-elections. I shall listen carefully to arguments and representations, but I will not speculate on whether a general election will occur on 7 June, although that is obviously a possible date. If a general election were scheduled to occur on that date, hon. Members on both sides of the House might decide that the deferral of parish or town council elections by two or three weeks is unacceptable. In many areas, such deferral would mean that the elections occurred in a holiday period. If hon. Members held that view, they might then request that we introduce an appropriate order. If representations are made, I will be happy to listen to them with great care. I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Clause 1 also provides that a candidate who was validly nominated for the elections that would have taken place on 3 May will remain so without the need to submit fresh

397
nomination papers for the elections on 7 June. One of the amendments tabled by the official Opposition is, I think, based on an anxiety that the rolling register means that candidates could be validly nominated as at 3 May, but if one or other of the people who nominated them ceased to be on the register, it could appear that they had not been validly nominated for 7 June. May I say, to reassure the Opposition, that nominations for 7 June will be fully valid if they were so for 3 May, and anything that happens thereafter, such as someone ceasing to be on the register, will not be relevant to their validity. If they were valid yesterday, they will be valid on 7 June.
Yesterday was the closing date for nominations, and that will remain the case until the Bill is passed. Assuming that it is passed, people who had been validly nominated as of yesterday will be able to withdraw their nomination papers up to 15 May, and it will be open to any individual to submit new nomination papers until 10 May, which will be the closing date for nominations for any local elections held on 7 June, using the normal election timetable. The close of applications fur absent votes will be at 5 pm on Wednesday 30 May.
Mr. John Greenway: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is still the intention to publish the nominations list at lunchtime tomorrow? Does he not think that, even at this late stage, that should be avoided if possible? Otherwise, people will be able to judge who has been nominated in the normal course of events and then seek to put up other candidates to wreck their prospects. We all know that the nominations list is secret until it is published, which is when the nomination process has closed. The Home Secretary should give some thought to that.
Mr. Straw: Frankly, there is no way round that. The law applies until it is changed. Even if the Bill proceeds according to the time scale that the Government have in mind, it cannot become law until next Tuesday at the earliest. Meanwhile, electoral registration officers are under a legal duty, which we expect them to perform, to observe the law. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In practice, the intelligence in any particular ward or electoral area is such that, roughly speaking, people know who will stand at a pretty early stage. I am already the subject of endless rumours about which of the usual six or seven non-traditional party candidates is likely to stand in my constituency, whenever a general election takes place. In most cases, people will have lined up in advance of the close of nominations for 3 May. Some may not have done, but we will have to accept that.
In recognition of the fact that the local election campaign will inevitably be longer and that some candidates may already have incurred wasted expenditure, such as having leaflets printed giving the election date as 3 May, we are raising the elections expenses limit for candidates for 7 June by 50 per cent. We do not think that many candidates will have expended much money. My knowledge of how candidates in every party operate at a local election level tells me that they tend not to have their leaflets printed until late in the day, but of course some do so earlier. It is possible in small electoral divisions for people manually to change dates on leaflets.
Notwithstanding that, it would be quite wrong if, as a result of the date change, a candidate who had already lawfully spent money on abortive campaigning faced
398
disqualification because his total expenditure was over the limit, which is why we are increasing it by 50 per cent. That figure was based not on any scientific survey but on my judgment of the maximum amount that anybody was likely to have spent at this stage in the campaign.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I accept the good will with which the Home Secretary is tackling this difficult situation, but he is talking about his intuition. Did he take any soundings from political parties or returning officers to ascertain whether the 50 per cent. increase was enough?
Mr. Straw: I took informal soundings, but I do not want to suggest that the figure was based on anything but my judgment. We all have a nose for these matters, if I may put it that way. I did many calculations and, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the spending limit for an electoral area in county council elections is a flat rate of £240 plus 4.7p per elector, so we are not talking about huge sums. I think that a 50 per cent. increase will be satisfactory.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Home Secretary accept that a better, more logical argument for that welcome increase is that many candidates in rural areas will now have to use the post, and they have no free postage, as I pointed out to the Leader of the House? People who jump the gun in advance of nomination day and print their leaflets in anticipation of an election are not to be encouraged. I offer him the better argument that candidates in some areas will find it necessary but expensive to use the post.
Mr. Straw: That is a good point. It is probably better than the one that I made—but if I am asked why I decided on a 50 per cent. increase, I cannot use the hon. Gentleman's argument because I did not think of it. I shall use the original argument on which the increase was based.
Clause 2 makes similar changes in respect of the district council elections that were scheduled to take place in Northern Ireland on 16 May. It makes no reference to by-elections for the simple reason that all 26 district councils in Northern Ireland were up for election on that date, and as no by-elections need to be held within six months of ordinary elections, there are no casual vacancies that would otherwise have been filled by by-elections.
The Northern Ireland provisions were discussed in the earlier debate by representatives of some Northern Ireland parties and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). It is self-evident that the bulk of the Bill is related to the Province. It takes the opportunity to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by providing that, if a general election and local elections fall on the same day, the polls should be combined.
Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 requires that, where two or more elections are to be held at the same time, they are to be taken together or combined. That has been the consistent practice for many years in Great Britain, but the Act was never extended to Northern Ireland. It means that if local elections and a

399
general election were to fall on the same day, the polls could not be combined, so voters effectively would have to vote twice. Polling could not be in the same room and voters would have to present themselves to polling stations twice to be issued with separate ballot papers. That does not stop elections being held on the same day, but it creates something of a pantomime in their administration.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Has it occurred to the Home Secretary that local government elections and general elections have not taken place on the same day in Northern Ireland because of the two separate and distinct methods of voting—the first-past-the-post system and proportional representation? Is it correct that the Government, for political reasons other than the foot and mouth outbreak, had in the pipeline provisions for amalgamating the two elections on the same day for the purpose of aiding some parties in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Straw: The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question is that the matter was under consideration, but no final decision had been made. This problem intervened, and a final decision was made—[Interruption.] That is true. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me, and I have told him exactly what the position is.
The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's first question is as he anticipated: there are two systems, single transferable vote and first past the post. That has been the traditional explanation—indeed, the only real explanation—of why there cannot be combined polls in Northern Ireland. However, during the elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the electorate in Scotland and Wales were perfectly capable of understanding that there were two separate ballot papers and two separate systems. The Scottish and Welsh elections in 1999 were held on the same day for the Parliament and the Assembly and for unitary councils, and they went off without incident. The same applied in London, where there were separate ballots, albeit under the same umbrella. As a Londoner, I had two ballot papers: one for the mayor using one election system, and another for Assembly Members using a different system.
Experience in the United Kingdom and in other countries with far more complex electoral systems shows that voters' intelligence is, to put it bluntly, not to be insulted. They understand the system, and an examination of the variations in turnout shows no correlation between the complexity of the electoral system and turnout one way or the other.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In a strange intervention, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take too long? We must finish Second Reading and the Committee stage by 9 o'clock. Some amendments deal with issues of substance, are wholly in order, and have been selected by the Chairman. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give us time to get to those amendments.
Mr. Straw: I have already cut out great swathes of my speech. The only reason I have taken any time is that I have taken interventions. I shall skip over the rest of the provisions on Northern Ireland.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for detaining the House, but this is probably our only chance
400
to ask the Home Secretary certain questions. In 30 seconds, can he explain why, in the Government's judgment, we need to shift the Northern Ireland elections? We went into that matter a little during the allocation of time debate, but can he say unequivocally for the record what the reason for that shift is?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a much greater expert on Northern Ireland than I am, as are others. I defer to him on Northern Ireland matters—and on many others, which we need not go into. [HON. MEMBERS: "More details."] Later. As my hon. Friend explained, the change is for the convenience of electors. I do not think that electors would take kindly to polls on separate dates, but the more important issue is that of foot and mouth. These are balanced judgments, but that is why we came to that view.
Clause 6 deals with compensation. In my statement on Monday, I explained that local authorities, which are responsible for meeting the full costs of local elections, inevitably will have incurred costs in the run-up to the elections that would have taken place in May. Local authorities will be obliged to go on incurring expenditure until the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is a good reason for its quick and smooth passage. Clause 6 gives me, as Secretary of Slate, the power to establish a scheme to compensate local authorities for the unavoidable additional expenditure incurred as a consequence of the deferral of the elections.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the clause also cover the cost incurred by local authorities in providing polling stations when churches, because of foot and mouth, have withdrawn facilities that have hitherto been available?
Mr. Straw: I shall have to give the hon. Gentleman a reply later through my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he winds up the debate. The idea is that the clause should cover any necessary and unavoidable expenses caused by this delay. We do not want local authorities to be in a different position as a result of the deferral of the elections from the one they would have been in if the elections were to be held on 3 May.
In the exchanges on Monday, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked whether we were making provision for candidates who have had abortive expenditure because of this change to be given compensation out of the public purse. I said that I would discuss the matter with her and with the Liberal Democrats. We have looked into the issue, and I have discussed it with the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and with officials of my party.
The parties are agreed that, in the current circumstances, it would he inappropriate for candidates of registered political parties to be compensated from public funds. I think that that will have the House's approbation. I thought that it was important to look into the matter and consult, but given that some people are unquestionably in worse circumstances as a result of foot and mouth—and for reasons that the House will understand have not received compensation—I am glad that the parties have agreed to that view.
I do not intend to change the powers to provide a scheme. Clause 6(1)(a) allows for compensation to be paid to candidates. I want to keep that option open,

401
because although it is unlikely to be used, a farmer who has suffered grievously as a result of foot and mouth may stand as an independent candidate, and if he or she has lost money they cannot fall back on the funds of a registered party. In fairness, their claim should at least be considered. I give the House an undertaking that if I receive any such representations I will consult the other parties before making a final decision on a scheme. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): The Bill has arisen because of the rapidly moving events of foot and mouth. The Home Secretary has told the House that postal votes will be valid up to 30 May. In the event that an exclusion zone is declared between 30 May and 7 June, assuming the election is on that day, would he be able to give returning officers the power to issue blanket postal votes for that exclusion zone under the consequential provisions in clause 7?
Mr. Straw: I shall have to get my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to provide a detailed answer when he winds up the debate. My guess is that the consequential provisions may allow that, because the order-making powers have been necessarily made wide. Under an earlier Bill—not the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—we have already provided, by all-party agreement, for postal votes on demand. We are putting a lot of effort into advertising postal votes on demand, including in the farming press and in the local press in the areas most affected by foot and mouth. The time for applying for a postal vote has been considerably reduced to six working days. I hope that everyone in the affected areas will, in any event, apply for a postal vote. Practical problems were involved in the time scale, given that applications must be submitted and checked and ballot papers must be sent and returned—by post—in time for the close of polling on 3 May.
I hope that I have explained the Bill.
7.30 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): In order to allow the House to debate important amendments, I intend to be briefish. If I am not interrupted too much, I shall even be able to remove the "ish" and be brief.
As I made clear on Monday, we welcome the fact that the Government have, albeit belatedly, accepted the argument that we first presented more than two weeks ago, but if I had doubts before about the wisdom of the guillotine motion that we debated earlier, they have been reinforced by the Home Secretary's inability to reply to some of the points that were raised. It suggests to me that the Bill has not been thought through thoroughly enough. That may be understandable given the time scale that is available, but it should sound a terrible warning about the sort of legislation that we may produce when we gallop through it at such an unnecessary rate.
It is unfortunate that the Bill is being introduced only now, after the legal timetable for the elections has begun. That has undoubtedly caused confusion, and it is regrettable that the Government did not see fit to take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago.
We do not believe that the Government have got it entirely right now. In specifying a fixed date of 7 June for local elections, they have left no room for manoeuvre.
402
They have not allowed for the possibility that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease may not be under control in at least some parts of the country by that time. We have heard the words "long haul" used in relation to the resolution of the crisis. The 7 June date seems very out of synch with the notion of a long haul.
Conservative Members do not believe that the House should work according to the arbitrary date of 7 June. We believe that further powers should be taken to allow further postponement of the elections in some areas if it is clear that the crisis is not under control.
If it took until last Friday for the Government to decide that it was not appropriate to hold elections on 3 May, it is impossible to see how they can be confident at this point that it will be possible to hold them on 7 June. Such a proposition is illogical, and smacks of panic. The Government have admitted that the scale and spread of the foot and mouth crisis has caught them by surprise. The official figures show that the epidemic continues to run out of control, and that the action to contain it has not always been adequate.
We cannot be certain today that the crisis will have been brought under control—still less that the disease will have been eradicated—by 7 June. That is why Conservative Members think that the Bill should not set 7 June in stone. In Committee, we shall table amendments providing for an alternative procedure.
I am not saying that it is necessarily impossible to hold elections on 7 June; I am saying that we cannot rely on the fact that it will be possible to do so. It is clear from the Bill itself that the date has been chosen not because the local elections need to be held within a month of their original date, or because it is foreseeable that the crisis will be under control by then, but simply because the Prime Minister wants to hold a general election at the earliest available opportunity, despite the fact that the Government's term of office still has more than a year to run. When I hear Ministers talking about "putting back the election", I have to remind them that there is no question of putting it back; they are desperate to bring it forward, by as much as a year.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has proposed four objective tests to determine whether the foot and mouth epidemic is sufficiently under control for elections to be justified. They are replicated in our amendment. They require the time between the reporting of a new case and the time of slaughter to have been reduced to 24 hours or less, geographical spread of the disease to have been reversed, movement restrictions to have been lifted from most farms and the trend in new cases to be clearly and sustainably downward. We shall return to that issue later—at least I hope we shall, the guillotine permitting.
On Monday, the Home Secretary told the House:
"We judge that, in terms of practical arrangements, polling in May would be possible and would produce fair results."
He cited the wider availability of postal votes, saying that
"telephone canvassing is now a key way in which voters in rural and urban areas are contacted by candidates".—[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 21.]
Does the Home Secretary accept that there may be practical difficulties on 7 June, even with postal voting? Can he state categorically that all farmers in affected areas are able, and will be able, both to send and to receive post? Is it not the case that some cannot, because they are

403
confined to their farms? I raised the points about postal voting with the Home Secretary in a written question for answer yesterday, but as of today—the day on which we are being asked to consider the Bill—no such answer has been provided.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that telephone canvassing may not reach rural electors, either because they have no telephones or because their numbers are not publicly available? What assessment has he made of the implications of increased telephone canvassing for candidates in affected areas who may be operating on tight budgets, notwithstanding the increase in the expenditure limit for which the Bill provides?
The date of 7 June may also pose practical problems for candidates who are themselves farmers, and who live in restricted areas. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised that point last month and I repeated it on Monday, but as yet we have received no response. How does the Home Secretary propose that such people should proceed if the outbreak is not under control by 7 June?
I should be grateful for a precise response from the Home Secretary, or from the Minister who winds up the debate, to another point that has been raised. Concern is rising in schools, because many are used for election purposes and 7 June falls in the middle of the GCSE period. That could cause considerable difficulties, and I should be glad to know what thought the Home Secretary has given to it. If he has given no thought to it—which would be entirely in character, given his response to other issues that have been raised—I hope that he will do so.
In response to the Home Secretary's statement on Monday 2 April, I raised the issue of compensation for candidates who may have, in good faith, spent large sums on election literature that is now inaccurate, or contains the wrong date, as a result of the Government's tardy change of mind. The Bill provides for a compensation scheme to compensate both individual candidates and registered political parties for their expenditure on such literature. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's further consideration of the matter, and thank him for consulting both me and the Liberal Democrats.
Conservative Members believe that the scheme should be restricted to independent candidates, and that candidates from registered political parties should not benefit from it. We also believe that criteria for the scheme should identify a clear threshold for the claiming of compensation by independent candidates, and that it should apply only when there is a significant probability of such candidates' not being able to mount a campaign in the run-up to 7 June because they have already spent their resources on material that will have to be destroyed, and are unable to raise fresh funds.
Because of the Government's guillotine, other issues—besides that of the arbitrary date—may never be debated. There is, for example, the issue of proposers, seconders and assenters, and the issue of the rolling register. The Home Secretary mentioned that in his speech; but there are also issues of detail. I do not think I heard the right hon. Gentleman deal with another anxiety that we have expressed, relating to whether the deadline for meetings of police and other authorities to which councils nominate members is being extended. A further issue is the update
404
of the rolling electoral register, which is due next month and which is important to all political parties. Because of a lacuna in the relevant regulations, some registration officers are apparently unwilling to provide parties with updates.
I hope that the Home Secretary is laughing at an aside, rather than at the worries of electoral registration officers. If he concentrates, he may find out about things that he has not considered. That will make the parties' position at a June election even more difficult.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): The Home Secretary is still not listening.
Miss Widdecombe: No, he is not.
We tabled a new clause to deal with the issue, but unfortunately it was not selected for debate in Committee, so I should be grateful to hear how it will be dealt with.
The Opposition support the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend support the provision of free post for local government candidates on this occasion? Although there may be difficulties in getting post to and from farmers, it is important that every elector knows who is standing in the local authority concerned. Without an election address, how will it be done, as canvassing in many rural areas is out of the question?
Miss Widdecombe: There will be areas in the run-up to 7 June—there are such areas now—where it will not be practical to deliver mail. Therefore, serious consideration should be given to a free post for candidates, at least in those areas. Again, we have raised that matter but have not received a definitive answer.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): Perhaps the right hon. Lady should ask the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is a free postal drop at council elections in Northern Ireland.
Miss Widdecombe: I could ask the Under-Secretary that question, but if he responds in the same way as the Home Secretary—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) knows full well, for reasons mainly to do with the security situation in the past in Northern Ireland, local government candidates have a free post.
Miss Widdecombe: Therefore, it can be done and is done in some parts of the United Kingdom. Why should it not be done in areas that have been unusually affected by a crisis so great that it has caused the postponement of the local elections? I would be grateful for an answer. If there are some insuperable difficulties that we have not seen, I would be grateful to know what they are. I would be glad if the Home Secretary tried to convince us about some of those things, instead of brushing them aside.
As I have said, we support the principle of the Bill. I look forward, more in hope than in faith, to constructive discussions about the issues that I have raised and about others that will come up during the Committee

405
proceedings. I have kept my speech to half the time that the Home Secretary took. I hope that the same spirit will be observed on the Labour Benches before we get to Committee.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the question of Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 350, the Noes were nine, so the question was agreed to.
On the question of waste electrical and electronic equipment, the Ayes were 346, the Noes were 126, so the question was agreed to.
On the question of social security, the Ayes were 435, the Noes were 38, so the question was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Elections Bill
Question again proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.
7.44 pm
Tony Wright: I shall detain the House but briefly.
Inside the House, we are not supposed to be uncertain about things, but I was one of the Members who was genuinely uncertain about whether it was necessary to move the election date. I was not persuaded that foot and mouth was the greatest crisis that this country had experienced since the second world war and that this extraordinary action was therefore required, but at the same time I was impressed with the way in which the Prime Minister clearly felt that it was right—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) laughs, but it is a serious consideration. The Prime Minister felt that it was right to respect sensitivities and to do something that he was not inclined to do. That should be respected.
If the Opposition—they have now provoked me—could make such decisions, they would be introducing the Elections (Indefinite Postponement) Bill. That would be the short title: the long title would say, "Until we have a new leader, new policies and some more support". We know where they are coming from, but the Government have taken an extraordinary decision.
My only reservation about the Bill and the proposed postponement is that I am not sure that it is the job of politicians to decide when elections should be held. It is a fairly fundamental point, and it is what we are being asked to do now. We are being asked to do so because there is a joker in the pack, which is that there has to be a general election on the day of the local elections. I say "has to": there is going to be one. [Interruption.] If that comes as a revelation to hon. Members, I should tell them that there will be a general election on 7 June.
406
[Interruption.] We will see what happens. Opposition Members will see whether they are right, or whether I am right.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a matter of law, there does not have to be a general election until 3 June 2002?
Tony Wright: Indeed. Many voters believe that they are voting for five-year Parliaments, but the average length of a Parliament since the second world war is three years and seven months, so four years has come to be the rough working average. That fact guides all our assumptions. The joker in the pack, if we are honest with ourselves, is the fact that there has to be, or it is believed that there has to be, a general election on the same day as the local elections, and that there is to be a general election on 7 June. All those things have to be put in the pot, and as a result local elections are being postponed to the date of the general election. That is the fundamental point.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman at least accept that, as a common-sense proposition, it would have made sense, once it began to be mooted that the local elections might have to be shifted, to prepare a contingency Bill or set of regulations? Equally, does he not think that it makes sense for the Government to build flexibility into the Bill in case his absolute assurances about 7 June prove not to be practical?
Tony Wright: I have a slightly different approach. I understand the hon. Gentleman's approach, but my approach is to question whether these matters should be in the hands of politicians at all. The question of when elections should be held is of fundamental constitutional importance. It is a constitutional fixture and politicians should not be able to get their sticky fingers on it. That would be viewed as an outrage in most other constitutional democracies, but we believe that it is entirely normal that we can mess around with such things at whim. We juggle all sorts of political considerations that have consequences and complications, which the Bill aims to tackle.
At one time, the Labour party was on the path of righteousness on these matters. Up until 1992, it believed that such decisions should not be in the hands of politicians. Indeed, its 1992 election manifesto said:
"No government with a majority should be allowed to put the interests of party above government, as the Conservatives have done. Although an early election will sometimes be necessary, we would introduce as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term".
That was right then and it is right now. Apart from the fact that we are now in office, I am not sure why we have moved from that position. When we were setting up new Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we stayed on the path of righteousness and provided for fixed terms.
We introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—a good measure that sought to control spending in a pre-election period. It is much harder to do that if one does not know when the election is to be.
Mr. Mike Gapes: I cannot understand my hon. Friend's logic. He argues that there should be a fixed term, but this deferral of the local elections is clearly

407
a breach of that. Is he saying that a fixed term should never be varied, or that the current proposal is not acceptable?
Tony Wright: I am saying that we have the Bill in this form, on this date, because the considerations that are being juggled are not the narrow considerations in the Bill but the wider considerations of choosing the date for a general election.
Mr. Gapes: No.
Tony Wright: If my hon. Friend does not know that, where is he? Perhaps we should pretend to ourselves that that is not the case, but we do a disservice to the people whom we represent if we maintain that pretence in public.
On the extraordinarily exceptional occasions when a fixed election might have to be moved, are politicians the best people to make the decision? We have just established an Electoral Commission—another excellent thing—and these are pre-eminently the circumstances, when an extraordinary event occurs that suggests that a constitutional fixture might have to be moved, when such an independent commission, operating on grounds of public interest, not of short-term, narrow political advantage, should be brought into play.
Sometimes, out of disaster, good sense breaks out. I hope that, as the House considers the Bill, we will heed the argument for taking the setting of election dates away from politicians and putting it into the hands of someone who can safeguard the public interest.
7.52 pm
Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made it clear in an earlier debate that the Liberal Democrats totally oppose the way in which the Government are handling the Bill. The way it is being rushed through the House is nothing short of a constitutional disgrace. I agree with the remarks made in that debate by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when he described it as a scandal.
I agree entirely, however, with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the principle of the Bill should be supported. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Prime Minister was faced with an enormously difficult decision and that the decision to defer, taken after due reflection, was the right one.
The only point on which I fundamentally disagreed with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) was when he rather implied that the Prime Minister had made that decision on a whim. The whole House will have welcomed the hon. Gentleman's refreshingly honest speech, which contained much common sense and a great deal with which all Liberal Democrats would entirely agree, since we have long argued for fixed electoral terms. With characteristic honesty, he also said that there will certainly be a general election on 7 June—"Trust me, I'm a politician." I am entirely convinced that he will be proved right.
I want to refer to some amendments that, because of the shortness of time, we will not have time to discuss in Committee. If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and
408
The Weald persists with the amendments suggesting that the delay could be not simply to 7 June but to any one of a number of different dates, and that those dates could be different in different parts of the country, she will certainly get no support from the Liberal Democrats. The notion of having local government elections on different dates in different areas strikes us as frankly crazy. It would be unfair to certain groups of electors and wholly impracticable.
I suspect that the Government share that view. I am grateful that they have quickly produced the new election timetable, but I note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove did, that it had to be rapidly revised 24 hours after its original publication.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: As ever, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions I always so much enjoy.
Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We are at an early stage in our deliberations, and he need not have been quite so generous to me. I suggest, however, that it would be unwise for him to worship at the altar of 7 June. I understand his point on different dates for elections in different areas—although I do not agree with it—but does he accept that for the Government to insist on that date, and to die in the ditch for it, is both arbitrary and capricious?
Mr. Foster: No, I do not. I am delighted, incidentally, that the hon. Gentleman said that I was being too generous in giving way to him. As that was the first intervention in my speech, I will bear that in mind the next time he tries for a third or fourth intervention, as he so often does when I speak in other debates.
It is important that the delay be a relatively short one, because it would do democracy a huge disservice if there were to be continuing uncertainty about the date of the local government elections. Conservative Members have tabled amendments pointing out that we need greater clarity about the dates of other events, such as the annual meetings of police and fire authorities. I am sure that they would agree that there must be clarity about when the local elections are to be, and that only in extreme circumstances—perhaps those in which primary legislation is required—should we contemplate any further delay beyond 7 June.
I want to make a few remarks about Northern Ireland, as I fear that we will not reach the amendments tabled on the issue. It is important that the Government should be given the opportunity to make further comments about the situation in Northern Ireland before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that the Minister will say something about the possibility of both elections—general and local—being held on the same day, and the arrangements that would be put in place for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was absolutely confident on the security issue, but I do not think that that confidence is widely shared in the House. Undoubtedly other hon. Members will wish to comment on that matter.
There are huge questions, for example, about who will have legal responsibility for the verification of ballot boxes in a joint election. People will want an answer to

409
that question. Quite legitimate questions are also being asked about the arrangements for postal votes. It appears that, if a dual election were held on 7 June, postal voting arrangements for the two elections would be different. Such arrangements could cause great confusion, so plans need to be put in place quickly to sort them out.
Mr. Öpik: Would my hon. Friend welcome a reassurance that the proposed arrangements will not leave the door open to increased electoral malpractice in the Province?
Mr. Foster: I am sure that every hon. Member would like to be absolutely assured by Ministers that every conceivable arrangement is being made to avoid malpractice in Northern Ireland and in every other part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will give us clear assurances on those issues. I hope that he will also give us clear assurances that there will continue to be consultation with the relevant body on those issues.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope very much that he will be a little more convincing about the foot and mouth aspect of delay in Northern Ireland. I was slightly surprised by another outbreak of honesty when the Minister said that the measure is about increasing voter turnout at the elections. Although I am greatly in favour of measures to improve voter turnout, I do not think that that objective can justify changing the agreed date of an election. Although increased turnout as a by-product of the change is welcome, the decision for the change must be based on the foot and mouth outbreak.
I have various quick questions for the Minister, which he may be able to answer in his reply. There is some confusion about whether the Bill will make the necessary change to the Local Government Act 1972, which specifically provides that county councillors' term of office shall be for four years. That term will clearly be altered if the Bill is passed, but I have seen no reference to that alteration in the Bill. May I have an assurance that the issue is being addressed?
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald mentioned the use of schools for the later election. We noted with interest the Home Secretary's statement that local authorities' expenses will be allowed if they were unavoidably incurred because of the electoral delay, but not if they were caused by the foot and mouth issue. So although the legislation may not deal with church buildings, which were mentioned earlier, presumably it will deal with the issue of finding alternative premises to schools that are being used for GCSEs. There may be some confusion about that issue and it would be helpful if we had some clarification on it.
I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald on changing the date of the police and fire authority annual meetings. We will definitely join Conservative Members in the Lobby to vote on the change if the Government do not accept the amendment.
I was delighted that the Home Secretary gave us a very clear assurance on the validity of nominations in relation to the rolling electoral arrangements.
Local councils will face another problem because of the delay. The Minister will be well aware that, under the Local Government Act 2000, it is anticipated that, by
410
the end of June, local councils will have to submit detailed proposals on their new ways of working. Given the difficulties that many councils face, not only with foot and mouth but with the delayed elections, would it not be appropriate to extend that time?
I am absolutely delighted that the Home Secretary has accepted the principle that the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), was advocating yesterday and which others now support—that it would be absolutely inappropriate in the current circumstances to consider providing compensation to candidates. It would be totally wrong to provide compensation and small sums to them when so many other people are not only losing great sums and incurring huge expenses but losing their livelihoods.
I was disappointed, however, that the Home Secretary still seems to believe that it might be appropriate for independent candidates to receive compensation. A possible inference from such compensation is that the registered political parties should cover the expenses of their candidates. Very often, those expenses are paid out of pocket by the individual candidate, whether he or she is a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidate. I think that the same arrangement should apply to independent candidates and that no compensation for the delay should be given to any candidate. Nevertheless, I welcome the 50 per cent. increase in the election expense limit.
Liberal Democrat Members support the Bill in principle, although we hope that it will be amended as I have described. Nevertheless, as I said, we accept that the Prime Minister had a difficult decision to make and that the legislation must now be rapidly enacted. Subject to our support for those amendments, we shall certainly give the Bill our full support.
8.7 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Deferment of the local elections is precisely what Opposition Members were demanding. Reference has already been made to the fact that, some time ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that the local elections should not be held now because of foot and mouth disease. Conservative Members are therefore hardly in a position to vote against Second Reading. Although I realise that they have said that they will not vote against it, in view of their consistent comments, they really could not vote against it.
We can imagine what Opposition Members would be saying if the elections had gone ahead on 3 May and, two days ago, the Prime Minister had announced a general election. They are concerned and afraid of a general election, not local elections, because of longstanding substantial Labour leads in the opinion polls. If the Prime Minister had said that there would be both local elections and a general election on 7 June, Conservative Members would have said that he was putting party before Government. Today, they would be throwing around that accusation rather debating as they are.
Mr. Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the very simple distinction between an election whose date is fixed by statute—the local elections—and

411
the date for a general election, which is entirely at the whim of the Prime Minister and does not have to be called for at least another year?
Mr. Winnick: I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said about another year, but I was here in the 1980s—
Mr. Bercow: When there was no foot and mouth.
Mr. Winnick: Both 1983 and 1987 were years in which elections were held before their time, and not one Conservative Member argued then that there should not be a general election. I doubt whether it would have been any different if there had been a foot and mouth outbreak. Labour Members did not welcome a general election on either of those dates, but we never argued that the then Prime Minister should not call one. The decision was up to her.
If circumstances were different and Conservative Members were generally confident that they could win a general election, they would not ask for a deferment of the local elections. On the contrary: they would say that democracy must go ahead. They would argue that the Prime Minister had no reason to alter the previously fixed date for the election and they would urge that the general election take place.
Before foot and mouth came on the scene, there was no demand from the Opposition regarding the general election. That is why I argue that Conservative Members are terrified of a general election and that they will use any excuse to defer it for as long as possible until the five years of this Parliament are up.
Mr. Gapes: Does my hon. Friend recall that, at the height of last September's fuel protests, the Leader of the Opposition at one point—when the opinion polls temporarily indicated an improvement in the Conservative party's performance—called for an immediate general election? Is it not interesting that that call should have disappeared?
Mr. Winnick: I remember that very well. What my hon. Friend says strengthens my point.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winnick: In a moment. If there were any possibility that the Conservative party might win a general election instead of suffering another humiliation, there would be no question of deferring any election, national or local.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is not about a general election. It is about the deferment of the local elections.
Mr. Winnick: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
Mr. Hawkins: Given that, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has just pointed out, we are discussing the deferment of the
412
local elections, is not the hon. Gentleman's argument torpedoed by the fact that all political commentators in all newspapers predict sweeping Labour losses in the local elections?
Mr. Winnick: The Tories fear the general election, not the local elections. I accept what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course. I shall simply repeat that the Tory party is demonstrating, beyond any doubt, its hypocrisy and opportunism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, Conservative Members were only too willing for a general election to be held last year, when there was the slight possibility that they might win. They have exhibited utter hypocrisy about deferring the general election. Of course they do not want it on 7 June. They want it deferred, if possible to next year. We understand their reasons very well.
8.13 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I hope to produce the shortest speech in the debate so far, as I have just a few points to make about the Bill.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, we are dealing with the postponement of the local government elections. However, there is a background to the debate, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). We all know what that background is.
I think that the Prime Minister was right to decide not to go to the country on 3 May. It would have been feasible to do so, but would it have been wise? The foot and mouth epidemic is a serious crisis, and to have proceeded with the election would have appeared insensitive to the problems being experienced by people in many parts of the country.
There is widespread speculation that the Prime Minister hopes to hold the election on 7 June, rather than 3 May. Either date would mean that the general election would be held within two or three weeks of local government elections in Northern Ireland. That would not be desirable.
It has happened twice before—in 1997, and on an earlier occasion—that local elections in Northern Ireland and a general election have been held close together. It is not a good idea to have two such elections within a few weeks of each other. In 1997, the local government elections were held just over two weeks after the general election, and turnout suffered significantly.
The Liberal Democrat party has argued that it would not be a good idea to have the general election and the local government elections in Northern Ireland on the same day. I suspect that that argument was being advanced on behalf of the Alliance party, which does not want a large election turnout. It hopes to slip some candidates into office on an indifferent turnout.
I welcome elections, and the more people who vote in them, the better. When two elections come close together, the sensible and commonsense response is to hold them on the same day. That is what the Bill will achieve. Consequently, I think that it is right in principle.
Unfortunately, however, the Bill has been introduced very quickly. We understand the reasons for that, but a number of technical matters have to be considered. One of the disadvantages of the present arrangements is that they will not allow sufficient time to look at those matters. It is a bad mistake by the Government not to provide more time.

413
A significant number of hon. Members have much knowledge, practical experience and expertise when it comes to elections. If any group of people is fit to consider the details of election, it is the Members of this House. I wholly disagree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase in that regard. Members of Parliament are elected to safeguard the public interest, and the suggestion that unelected people would be better guardians of the public interest is objectionable as a matter of principle. However, I shall not pursue that further.
It is a pity that we do not have more time to look at the details. If all points cannot be dealt with tonight, the Government must ensure that they are pursued in another place.
Finally, I want to make one general point. There are a lot of elections in the United Kingdom now—for Parliament, local government, the regional Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and for Europe. Various terms and dates govern those institutions. It would be worth giving serious consideration to the election timetable, and to the interaction between elections.
In addition, it would be worth while to give serious consideration to the state of the statute book on elections, which is in a mess. What we are doing today is likely to add to that mess. There is a serious need, therefore, to look at electoral law in the United Kingdom as a whole, with a view to producing a simple, consolidated Act to deal with the matter. At present, it is very difficult to know precisely what the law is.
I have made clear my points of principle, so I shall bring my speech to an end, thus achieving the feat of sitting back down on the Bench before my name appears on the annunciator screen.
8.17 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and to say that I agree strongly with most of what he said, and especially with his last point. We need to look at the election statute book relatively soon. The matter is complicated, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I represent a London constituency, and there are no elections in London this year. However, the capital has its own electoral cycle, with borough elections every four years, followed every two years by elections for the Mayor and Assembly. It is a complicated arrangement.
I want to raise a more difficult question. I understand why the decision to defer has been taken, but I am a London MP, and the only wildlife in my constituency consists of urban foxes or the escaped rabbits that the foxes eat. There are no farms in my area, and life there has not been affected by foot and mouth in any way at all. That is true for the vast majority of people, parliamentary constituencies and local authorities in the UK. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have taken the decision because a significant minority of the country is badly affected by the crisis.
The decision to postpone elections is a serious matter. I do not want to have to do it again. Sometimes, democracy has to be conducted in difficult circumstances. I was an observer with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation at the elections for the Russian Duma on 19 December 1999. I was in a place called Barnaul in western Siberia. The temperature on polling day was minus 27 deg. They had something there which we do not
414
have but might consider for future elections—a mobile ballot box. It is put on a heavy vehicle with chains and big wheels and goes to the most remote farms. People who are lying in their sick bed, have bronchitis or have difficulty in walking are able to participate in an election with the assistance of that device, even in those very harsh climatic conditions.
We do not have extremes of climate. We have postal votes, and our systems of mass communication are much more sophisticated. So the arguments for deferral must be carefully weighed. I do not support any move for an indefinite deferral. It causes many problems for local government and it sends the signal that democracy in local government and society is not important.
I am afraid that I disagree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I do not believe that the judiciary, or some collection of the great and the good from academia, should determine how our political system should function. We must take responsibility for making the decisions, and we should suffer the consequences if we make the wrong ones. It is a cop-out for democratic politicians to say that these decisions are nothing to do with us and that others will decide on our behalf. That is not why I am in politics, and I do not think that Members of this House should, if they think about it, take that approach either.
I referred in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to the views expressed by the putative Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, last September. I have drawn attention to that in early-day motion 488. The Conservative party is playing a very opportunistic game, and it is bizarre. On the one hand, Conservative Members call for an early general election; on the other, they want the indefinite postponement of local elections and presumably take the view that the general election should be put off as long as possible. That was not the view taken by Margaret Thatcher in 1983, after four years of a Parliament, or in 1987, after four years of a Parliament. It was not the view taken by Harold Wilson in 1970, although he got it wrong. He was ahead in the polls, but he lost. In our society, Governments that are popular and have a large majority go to the country early. That is a basic rule. Governments that are unpopular and in trouble hang on until the end.
I should like to conclude with a little anecdote.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gapes: Not at the moment. I should like to tell my story.
I worked at Labour party headquarters in the 1970s. In 1978, I was the national organiser for Labour students. I was at a National Union of Students training conference at Nottingham university in September 1978 when I received a telephone call from Transport house saying that I should return to London for a meeting at No. 10 Downing street the following morning at 10 am. I was told not to tell anybody, so I assumed that the then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, was going to announce the election that day and that he would go on television to address the nation.
All the students piled into the television room at Nottingham university, waiting for the announcement. I knew that it would definitely happen because I had been told to come back to London the next morning.

415
The Prime Minister came on the television and said that there was no election, he was carrying on and he had a job to do. I spent the next 40 minutes frantically trying to find someone to speak to who could confirm whether the meeting was on, because I had to get the train to London that night. No one was available.
I got the train to London, went to my office where I saw a big notice on my desk saying "Sorry. Meeting cancelled." The general secretary of the Labour party, Ron Hayward, had phoned all the people who were out of London to get them back because he was convinced, in September 1978, that the general election would be called by the Prime Minister.
That shows how personal the decision is. It indicates to me that it is a very difficult decision. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is wrong. We do not know when the general election will be, because none of us is privy to the Prime Minister's thoughts on the day that he makes that decision. It is a personal decision that he will make. None of us can assume that the election will be held on any particular date in the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put me in a dilemma. I thought that I could not rob the House of his punch line, but I must now remind him that this is an embroidery well beyond the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Gapes: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I therefore conclude my remarks.
8.25 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I always wondered how they had invented the spin doctor, and now I know. If that was the father of spin doctors, no wonder they wanted to get away.
I happen to agree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I believe in fixed-term Parliaments. Every other body in this country is elected on a fixed-term basis, and it would be sensible if the Government were as well. However, as you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not what we are discussing.
We are discussing the date of the county council elections. I called for them to be postponed even before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made that call. I believed that it was the right thing to do because, as a Member representing a constituency that has foot and mouth, I see at first hand the real agony and anguish that this terrible disease is causing in the rural community. It was right and proper for the Prime Minister to take the decision that he did, and it is right and proper that Parliament should pass this legislation. I deeply regret the way in which it is being rushed through, however, because it contains issues of substance and there are amendments to it on the Order Paper.
I rose to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, only because it looks as though we shall not have the privilege of addressing you as Sir Alan later on, because the proceedings on Second Reading and the remaining stages must be concluded by 9 o'clock. As there are winding-up speeches to be made from the Front Benches, it seems that we will not have a chance to discuss the amendments.
For me, one issue above all is of substance. That concerns the date. If the Prime Minister was rightly concerned last week that the epidemic was not under
416
control, I do not for the life of me understand how he can be confident of knowing by 10 or 14 May—which I believe is the very latest date for another postponement—that 7 June will be a clear day. That is why I strongly support the move, and I tabled an amendment to that effect, which was selected, to give ourselves the opportunity by affirmative resolution to come to both Houses of Parliament and defer the date again to another date perhaps in June, or perhaps to defer the date in certain parts of the country. I readily accept that it may be appropriate to have county council elections on 7 June in Lincolnshire whereas, sadly, it may not be appropriate to have them in Staffordshire and it almost certainly would not be appropriate in Cumbria or Devon.
The fundamental mistake that the Government have made in drafting the Bill is not to have allowed themselves and the House flexibility—an escape clause so that they could change the date without having to go through the rigmarole of primary legislation yet again. If we had incorporated a provision such as that outlined in my amendment or that tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, we would have built flexibility into the measure.
We are denying ourselves, those whom we represent, and those whom the county councillors will represent a real opportunity. Sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not hear the admirable brief speech made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He said that the Prime Minister was clearly seeking to orchestrate two elections on one day. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it plain from the Front Bench that Conservative Members were not apprehensive about the results of the county council elections. We are most anxious to have them. All the pundits predict that they are likely to result in significant gains for my party. We look forward to that enormously. It is because the Prime Minister knows that and does not want to go to the country in a general election against that background that he is trying to put the two elections on one day. In advancing the argument for fixed terms, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase hit the nail on the head. He is right.
Others wish to speak, so I will not say any more save to appeal even at this late stage to the Minister. The Bill has to go to another place so, although there will not be a Committee stage in this House this evening, perhaps there will be one in another place. I urge the Minister to amend the Bill to reflect the spirit of my amendment and that tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. That would give flexibility to Government and Parliament to move the election date if sadly, this terrible disease is still ravaging the countryside.
Those of us who went today to the presentation arranged by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and listened to the experts know that the disease is not under control yet. I devoutly hope that it will be on 7 June, but I have real doubts. So I say to the Minister, please, please, heed these pleas and put some flexibility into the Bill before it reaches the statute book.
8.32 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be extremely brief. I warmly welcome the Bill in principle, although I have some concerns about it. Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe that there is a need to put the Bill through quickly because we have a statutory duty,

417
if the local elections are to be postponed, to specify the new date on which the local elections are to be held. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I believe that the House has a duty and a responsibility to specify another date when they are to be held. To leave it open would be unconstitutional and most unsatisfactory.
I have to say to the Minister, and perhaps here I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, that I am not sure that 7 June is right. However, we clearly need to specify another date. I was at the briefing session to which my hon. Friend referred. It is clear that the daily number of cases of foot and mouth could peak in the second half of the local authority election campaign and perhaps even that of the general election campaign. If the Government's chief scientific adviser is to be heeded, in the worst scenario the number of cases could peak at more than 400 cases a day around 21 May. That clearly causes concern.
I want to ask specific questions. The Minister will be aware that I said earlier that in my area at least one parochial church council—Eaton council in the south of my constituency—had said that it was not prepared to make the church hall available as a polling station in the immediate future because it had concerns about the countryside, farming and the foot and mouth crisis.
My local authority will incur additional expenditure in administering the election. Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), assure me that local authorities will be properly reimbursed for necessary, additional expenditure incurred in carrying out our democratic procedures for local elections? At this stage, I make no reference to a general election that may or may not also be held on 7 June.
I am also concerned that, in many areas of my constituency, farmers will not be able to get off their farms and candidates will be unable to canvas and to introduce themselves to farmers. As several new candidates are standing for Cheshire county council in my area, how are electors to know all the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote? Serious consideration should be given to allowing one free postal delivery for county council election candidates—if not to the country at large, at least to those parts of the countryside where severe restrictions and exclusion areas will prevent the operation of the normal democratic process.
I feel deeply concerned about that matter. I myself cannot call on many of my farmers at present, because I do not want to risk spreading that dreadful virus—the foot and mouth disease that affects so much of our countryside. Although many people may say, "The countryside is open", I point out to Ministers who highlight that fact and have recently used that expression time and again, that many people who have direct or indirect association with the farming community—especially the livestock farming community—do not want visitors to the countryside, irrespective of the losses that may be sustained both for that community and allied industries and businesses.
The Government have a unique opportunity to show good sense and a full understanding of the problems experienced in the countryside due to the foot and mouth restrictions. If the Minister could at least give an indication that the Government might consider making provision in the measure for a free postal delivery for
418
local election candidates—especially in areas affected by foot and mouth—I should be delighted. From the Government's point of view, that would show a true understanding of democracy and of the need for everyone to have the opportunity not only to know their local authority candidate, but to go out and vote on polling day.
8.38 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am inclined to accept the Prime Minister's judgment on delaying the local government elections in England and Wales. That is all the more relevant because—as it had clearly been the right hon. Gentleman's intention to hold on the same day the local government elections and the general election, for which polls showed that he was significantly ahead—such a delay might have been considered something of a sacrifice. However, I oppose the proposition that the local government elections in Northern Ireland should be linked to that delay. Those elections were to be held not on 3 May, but on 16 May.
I was surprised to read the element of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. When the Prime Minister made his announcement and was interviewed outside No. 10 Downing street, he was immediately asked by Ken Reid of Ulster Television about the possible implications for Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister replied that, because Northern Ireland was in the second category—namely, that there had been an incident of foot and mouth, but no reoccurrence—it was important to return to normality as quickly as possible. One might have concluded, therefore, that normality would involve going ahead with what was normal—an election on 16 May. Having listened during this debate and the previous one, I have heard nothing from those on the Government Front Bench that would support their decision to postpone the election in Northern Ireland until 7 June.
Foot and mouth disease is not the reason for the postponement. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is inaccurate in saying that there is a low level of the disease in Northern Ireland. There is no foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland. There was one incident of a republican smuggler who tried to make money on the side and caused havoc around the border in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, but there has been no recurrence. Indeed, the Government successfully argued in Europe that there was no foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland, so let us remove that from the possible reasons why they have taken this decision.
Of course the Government might argue, although they cannot do so publicly, that they want the postponement because they did not want to have two elections on 7 June, given the likelihood of a general election. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, that has happened on several occasions in the past, with higher turnouts than normal in Great Britain, even if the elections were not on the same day. So the Government cannot use that argument.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann say that he looks forward to elections, because he has been trying to ban the local government elections in Northern Ireland. He has said that they should be put off altogether and that there should be a review of local government for a year or two before holding them. However, he comes to the House and has the audacity to say that he wants to hold elections and is

419
looking forward to them. Well, I am looking forward to the elections in Northern Ireland and, irrespective of whether they are held on 16 May or 7 June, the people are looking forward to the opportunity to speak at the ballot box.
On the Minister's response, it is fully clear that the Bill has been introduced for a political purpose. The Government believe—wrongly, I think—that it will be a boost to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and to the Social Democratic and Labour party, but they will, in effect, ensure that the local government elections in Northern Ireland will be overshadowed by the issues relevant to the Westminster election. Therefore, people will come out for the local government election, as well as for the Westminster election, to deal with the key issue in Northern Ireland—the Belfast agreement—and on that argument, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will undoubtedly lose.
Clearly, we shall have no opportunity to speak in Committee, so let me say that I should have been interested to find out from those on the Government Front Bench why on earth they have included subsections 2(2) and 2(3). Nomination day in Northern Ireland would not have taken place until the end of April or the beginning of May, by which time the Bill will be law, so no one can be nominated and, therefore, subsections 2(2) and 2(3) are superfluous. The matters that concern my colleagues and me greatly are those that relate to the schedule.
Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman not noticed that the only possible reason for those provisions is that the Bill will become permanent legislation? It will not die, so it can be applied if a similar situation ever exists in future, and I believe that it will not be very good legislation.
Mr. Robinson: If that is the case it is very sad indeed. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann did not tell the House that the very good reason for not holding a local government election and a Westminster election on the same day in Northern Ireland is that there are two different electoral systems. That will cause untold confusion at the polling stations, especially for elderly people. On one hand, people will have to vote with a cross in the Westminster election and, on the other, they will have to select their first, second or third choice and beyond in the local government elections. There will undoubtedly be significantly more spoiled votes as a result of holding a dual election for Westminster and local government. So I hope that these provisions will not be used in the future, although the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) may well be right about the Government's intention.
I particularly ask the Government to reconsider the leeway that they will give to returning officers under new rule 46A. They want to let the returning officer determine whether to open the ballot boxes in either the local government or Westminster elections and remove the stray ballot papers from the other election. That should not be left to the judgment of returning officers; they should be required to do that. However, under the new rule, they simply "may" do that. That is not good enough, particularly in a local government election under proportional representation when two fifths of a vote have, in the past,
420
made the difference between one candidate and another being elected. In addition, a handful of votes could decide a Westminster seat, so such flexibility should not be built into the Bill.
I wish to allow those on the Front Benches the opportunity to wind up but, finally, may I express my concern that the oversight that counting agents should be entitled to have over the opening of ballot boxes is not a requirement under the Bill. Indeed, in a hole in the corner, someone might be able to open up the ballot boxes and tamper with their contents. Oversight should be permitted and counting agents should be allowed—arrangements should be made for this—to see the opening of the ballot boxes. That is essential, and returning officers should be given instructions to ensure that that happens.
Although the inclination of my colleagues and I would have been to vote against the Bill's Second Reading because we are opposed to those elements of it that relate to Northern Ireland, we are prepared to forgo that opportunity rather than take up the further time that such a Division would cause.
8.46 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Because of the ridiculously short time allowed by the guillotine and the fact that we want the Minister to answer some of the important questions that have been raised on Second Reading, I shall be extremely brief. I will not have the opportunity to comment in any detail on a number of the interesting issues that have been raised. However, I repeat something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said in her opening remarks. When the Prime Minister weighs all the factors in the balance, as he said he would have to do in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 21 March, the Government will not be able to offer any certainty that the position on the terrible foot and mouth epidemic will be any better in June than in May.
My right hon. Friends Members for Maidstone and The Weald and for Richmond, Yorks have said that flexibility should be built into the Bill so that the date of local elections can be reconsidered depending on when the disease is genuinely under control. Four objective tests should also be applied.
First, the standard time between the report of a new case of the disease and the slaughter of the animals in question should be 24 hours or less. At present, we know that, sadly, the backlog of animals waiting to be slaughtered and waiting to be buried after slaughter is growing. The second objective test is that the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed. The Government cannot say with confidence that the position will be any better in June than in May. The third objective test is that movement restrictions should have been lifted from most farms, and the final test is that the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward, rather than upward as it tragically still is.
There is so much more that Opposition Members could say but, given the limitations on time and the fact that we must have answers from the Minister, I shall incorporate everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said in my conclusion. Her comments remain just as valid at the end of the debate as they were at the beginning.
8.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for the brevity of his remarks. I hope that that will allow me to reply to many of the important points that have been raised in what has been a good debate. It raised serious questions, but I am grateful to hon. Members for their broad agreement that it would not be appropriate to hold elections in England and Wales, at least, on 3 May. I also thank Members in other parties for the support that they have offered for the proposal that we should defer the local elections until 7 June. I appreciate that there were concerns about those issues, some of which I hope to address.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised several significant matters. She mentioned that GCSE examinations take place in June, which might have implications if local government elections take place on 7 June. It is difficult to choose an election date because it always coincides with another event, such as factory holidays. The Conservatives faced that choice when they were in government and decided to hold elections in June 1983, June 1987 and June 1970. Each time, they had to take account of the fact that examinations were being conducted in schools.
We are certain that acting returning officers showed admirable flexibility on those occasions and will do so again. They have the resources and ability to prepare for elections, and can ensure that locations for polling stations do not interfere with the ability of young people to take their examinations. I am sure that acting returning officers will put contingency plans into effect as the need arises. Examinations are often staged in only part of a school's premises and it may well be possible for the polling station to be moved to a different area in the school. The issue is important. We have considered it and believe that we can rely on acting returning officers to deal with the problem.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised the issue of free mailshots, to which we gave careful consideration. If I may spare the hon. Gentleman's blushes, he made a statesmanlike speech. The difficulty, is that if we have mailshots in areas that are affected by foot and mouth, it will be incumbent on us to provide the same facility to other people across the country. Different issues arise at different times in different places. It would be difficult to say that the circumstances are so unique that free mailshots should be given in one area rather than another. We would have to consider giving the facility to all candidates and people would ask why, if we could do it this year, we could not do it next year. We need a longer time scale in which to consider free mailshots, although I realise that the hon. Gentleman presents a problem that we face now.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said—perhaps she should consult Hansard on this—that some areas are not having post delivered and they should have free mailshots, which slightly defeats the point. I think she meant that there are difficulties in delivering post in some areas because it cannot be taken to the door. However, farms are making alternative arrangements—such as providing a facility at the end of the driveway—to collect their post. By and large, mail is being delivered, so it is possible for someone to take a leaflet to those
422
places without going across a restricted area. Having considered circumstances in my constituency, I think that it would be possible to hand-deliver leaflets. If the expenses are raised as the Government propose, there is a facility for some mailshots to be sent by post by the candidate of a person's choice.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? Special consideration is being given to parts of the country during the foot and mouth crisis. I am sure that an exception could also be made for postal deliveries.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have considered that carefully and I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will give it further consideration. I heard what he said; the Government always try to listen on such issues. However, we have considered the matter carefully and I think that we have a settled position.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised a number of issues. First, on meetings of police authorities, the power in clause 7 will allow us to make an order to postpone the date on which police authority annual meetings have to be held. I hope that that provides reassurance.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I will but, given the limited time and the large number of questions that have been asked, it is the last time that I shall to do so.
Mr. Heath: While the hon. Gentleman is dealing with police authorities, will he confirm that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 specifies a four-year term for members of a police authority? Will that be dealt with in consequent legislation?
Mr. O'Brien: Indeed, that issue was raised in our debate, and I am coming on to it. The period for which councillors and others are elected depends on the re-election of others. The fact that we are postponing the elections enables councillors to retain their position; we are advised in law that that is the case and we will be safe to continue to allow councillors and members of police authorities and other organisations to retain their position as councillors for the month between 3 May and 7 June, so that the election can take place. If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants me to write to him and set out the details, I am happy to do so—[Interruption.] I will do the same for his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
I was asked about the updating of electoral registers. That is a significant issue which we are still examining. It is outside the scope of the Bill, but we shall consider the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The hon. Member for Macclesfield asked whether the Bill allows for compensation to be paid in cases in which churches cannot be used. Compensation will be paid to local authorities for the additional expenditure incurred as a result of the postponement of

423
the local elections; we will have to provide guidance on the detail of that, and I hope that it will deal with the sort of points made by the hon. Gentleman. Compensation would not be used in relation to churches; it would be available for local authorities regarding the extra costs that they incur.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for supporting the Bill and the decision to postpone local elections. He proposed a single consolidated Bill to deal with all elections; that is an interesting thought on which I shall reflect. I am also grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Bath, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. He asked a number of questions, the first of which was a request for more information on local government elections in Northern Ireland. I can provide reassurances in addition to those provided by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Returning officers are experienced in operating more than one election on the same day, as happened in 1997, so, even if a general election were called to coincide with local elections, we are confident that electoral officers will run fair polls and, as we heard earlier, that the electorate will cast separate votes at the same time.
I was asked who will verify the ballot boxes if—
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister instruct the House accurately? He has just quoted an incident and said that two elections took place in one day. That is not true at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. O'Brien: I heard what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, and I will check—[Interruption.] I am briefed that that occurred, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told me that the briefing may have been inaccurate, so the hon. Gentleman may well be right. May I check and write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the matter?
Time is running out for me to deal with other points made by hon. Members. The points raised were important. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that we do not need certainty: we do need certainty about the date of the local government elections. I agree entirely with his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield that Parliament has said in the past that it requires certainty. That is why we have a specific date—
It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

ELECTIONS BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

(b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the Secretary of State's expenditure under any provision of the Act relating to compensation.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.
Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].
It being after Nine o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Questions necessary for the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 3
  COMBINATION OF POLLS
  Amendment made: No. 21, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, leave out first "(1)" and insert "(1A)".—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Schedule

  NORTHERN IRELAND: MODIFICATION OF ELECTION PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 7, line 36, leave out—
  'Schedule 1 to the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001)'
  and insert—
  'the Schedule to the Elections Act 2001)'.
  No. 23, in page 11, line 7, leave out—
  'Schedule 1 to the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001)'
  and insert—
  'the Schedule to the Elections Act 2001)'—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  As amended in tire Committee, considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now move to Report stage. Mr. Speaker has arranged for a paper to be available in the Vote Office and it is being circulated. A number of manuscript amendments have been tabled for Report. Copies of the amendments and Mr. Speaker's provisional selection are available, as I mentioned, in the Vote Office and around the Chamber. For the convenience of hon. Members, the numbering refers also to the numbering of amendments on the Committee amendment paper.

New Clause 1

  FURTHER POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS UNTIL FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE UNDER CONTROL
  '(2A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint a day later than 7th June 2001 to which the elections mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) are to be postponed

  425
  if he is satisfied that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is not under control in a particular local authority area; and different days may be appointed for different local authority areas.
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is "under control" when:

  (a) the standard time between the report of a new case of the disease and the slaughter of the animals in question is 24 hours or less; and

  (b) the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed; and

  (c) movement restrictions have been lifted from most farms; and

  (d) the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward.

  (2C) An order made under subsection (2A) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.
  (2D) An order made under subsection (2A) may include such consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and in particular may include provision for the postponement of a local government election to fill a casual vacancy which falls to be held after 7th June 2001 but before the day appointed in the order.'.
  Brought up, and read the First time
  Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at beginning insert—
  'Subject to section [Further postponement of elections until foot and mouth disease under control],'.
  No. 2, in page 1, line 6, at beginning insert
  'Subject to section [Further postponement of elections until foot and mouth disease under control],'.
  Mr. Hawkins: New clause 1 has been deliberately drafted in as similar a form as possible to amendment No. 13, which was not reached in Committee. That further reinforces the argument that the guillotine imposed by the Government was ridiculously short. We did not debate any of the 50 amendments in Committee, and there were still hon. Members who wanted to speak on Second Reading when the wind-up speeches started, despite attempts by right hon. and hon. Members to be brief.
  Our new clause suggests that the Secretary of State should by order made by statutory instrument appoint a day later than 7 June 2001 to which the elections mentioned in clauses 1(1) and 1(2) are to be postponed if he is satisfied that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease is not under control in a particular local authority area. Different days may be appointed for different local authority areas.
  As I said in my wind-up speech on Second Reading, our view is that there should be four objective tests by which it could be established whether the terrible disease is genuinely under control. We all remember that the Minister of Agriculture suggested that the disease was under control at a very early stage, but he was patently misleading the country. It soon became clear that he had to apologise to all farmers and citizens for making those comments.
  426
  The Opposition suggest that four objective tests should be satisfied before a decision can be made. Those tests are set out in subsection (2) of the new clause. First proposed subsection (2)(a) would require that
  "the standard time between the report of a new case of the disease and the slaughter of the animals in question is 24 hours or less".
  Sadly, as we have heard, hundreds of thousands of animals are not being slaughtered in time. Often, even those that are slaughtered are not buried in time.
  Secondly, the new clause proposes that a decision on elections should be made only if
  "the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed".
  Unfortunately, we know that the geographical spread is getting wider. Thirdly, the new clause would require that
  "movement restrictions have been lifted from most farms".
  That condition is certainly far from being fulfilled at the moment, and there is little or no prospect that it will be more likely to be fulfilled in June than at the beginning of May. The fourth proposed test is that
  "the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward."
  In addition to those provisions, the new clause suggests that the Bill should allow the making of orders that
  "may include such consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and in particular may include provision for the postponement of a local government election to fill a casual vacancy which falls to be held after 7th June 2001".
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a by-election was called in Carlisle after foot and mouth disease was discovered in Cumbria? The Conservative candidate in the election is the agent of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
  Mr. Hawkins: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is sensitive about the prospect of further political losses in his constituency. Of course, he represents a city constituency in which, as I recall it, his party made sweeping losses and mine made sweeping gains.
  However, we are debating serious proposals that would provide the flexibility that is needed. We know that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister can say with confidence that the position on foot and mouth will be any better in early June than in early May. That is why the new clause is so vital. We believe that the Bill should provide the flexibility for the Government to think again.
  I know that many hon. Members wanted to speak on Second Reading about the postponement period, but were unable to do so. As this debate is also subject to a ridiculously short guillotine, it is incumbent upon me to be brief. We want a number of questions to be answered, but I anticipate that other hon. Members will want to speak about the new clause and amendments, so I shall conclude my remarks.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: I want briefly to comment on the new clause, which goes to the heart of the argument about flexibility that featured during our Second Reading debate. I hope that in doing so the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is not in his place, will not regard me as a craven lickspittle, which was the phrase he used when we were discussing the allocation of time motion a little earlier today.

  427
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said on Second Reading, postponement of fixed-term elections is a serious matter that should be contemplated only in very serious circumstances. I think that there is consensus throughout the House that foot and mouth constitutes such a circumstance, especially in some parts of the country. I am afraid, however, that I cannot support the new clause for two reasons.
  First, there has to be a balance of judgment about the degree of delay. Although it is proper for consideration to be given to the problems that are created by foot and mouth, there is an argument about normality. One of the powerful cases made by the Opposition in debates and on statements about foot and mouth recently is about the need to return a sense of normality to the rest of the country, particularly for the tourism industry. It is reasonable to weigh up the balance between the problems that foot and mouth creates and the need for normality, given that we are taking a serious step in proposing to postpone fixed-term elections.
  The second issue is one of principle, and it is my real objection to the new clause. If we are to defer fixed-term elections, there should be absolute certainty about the date to which we propose to postpone them. I do not think that we should pass legislation that makes it easier for any Government, even one whom I support, to return to the House and say that they wish to postpone the elections further.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only reason for our tabling the new clause is that the Government have chosen 7 June, a perilously close date on which it is likely, on all predictions, that the foot and mouth epidemic will still be at its height? If the Government had chosen a significantly later date, the hon. Gentleman would not need to make this speech.
  Mr. Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but this is a question of judgment and I think that it is reasonable to delay the elections until 7 June. We are debating the new clause, however, and the problem is that it would mean that if the Government could argue that the four objective tests on foot and mouth disease—with great respect, I must say that some of them are rather subjective—had not been met, they would have the power to postpone the local government elections until any date they cared to name, with no end date. That cannot be right, and for that reason the House should not support the new clause.
  Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would go further and say that it is vital for democracy that there be a clear date for the elections and that it should not be long after the original date of 3 May. As I said earlier, consideration of any further delay should take place only in an extreme case.
  There are two other reasons why the new clause should not be accepted. It allows for the possibility of different election dates in different parts of the country. Elections might be delayed in some council areas but go ahead in others, and that would lead to many problems. It would significantly erode the democratic principle. People in areas where elections were delayed would know what had
  428
  happened in elections in other parts of the country. That raises all sorts of questions about the national campaigning that takes place during local elections impacting on some parts of the country but not on others.
  The new clause is based on a spurious attempt to suggest that there are clear, objective criteria for defining when foot and mouth disease is under control in a particular and, in some cases, small area. Four standards are proposed. Do hen. Members believe that in some of the relatively small council areas that we are talking about it would be possible to make a clear, objective judgment about whether, for example, the geographical spread of the disease had been reversed in that area?
  The new clause smacks of a Conservative party that is concerned about the success of candidates in a particular area. Some Tories may try to argue that the disease has not been reversed in their council area, whereas others who expect to do well will suggest that it has been reversed. I do not believe that there can be clearly defined, objective criteria on when the outbreak is under control. Such criteria could possibly be provided on a nationwide basis, although I have reservations about that, but I do not believe that that could be defined for small areas. We need a clear and specified date that is relatively soon.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Waterson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman seems to share the Prime Minister's obsession with 7 June as a date for the elections. How bad would circumstances have to be for his party to argue in due course that the 7 June date is inappropriate?
  Mr. Foster: I have already made it clear that I believe that the Prime Minister made the right decision to defer the timing of the election for a short period. The foot and mouth outbreak would have to be significantly worse than predicted, and worse than it is likely to be, before I would even remotely contemplate supporting a further delay. The democratic process is vital. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, if we continued to delay week after week and month after month, we would create uncertainty and it would send out a clear signal that this country was closed for business. That would have a serious impact on small businesses and the tourism industry, about which many people are concerned.
  For the three reasons I have given, I hope that the House will reject the amendment, and that we will still have some time for a Third Reading debate. That will enable the Minister to answer the many points that have been put to him, but to which he has not had time to reply.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I want to put the point of view from my constituency. It is a huge rural constituency in Scotland, and is one of the 10 largest—it is more than 600 square miles. I well understand the reason for this legislation, and the dilemma that the Government and the Prime Minister were in last week. I did not envy him his task in making that decision, and I do not envy him having made it. I support his decision, because he made it in the national interest. He certainly made it in the interest of a huge rural constituency that contains a large farming community and an equally large tourist industry.

  429
  The decision was fine, and it had to be made. We had to strike a balance, and give priority to dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak while looking after the national interest, the general economy and the tourist industry in particular.
  Having said that, now that we have had to change the date of the elections, and because there is an understanding, an inference or an assumption that there may also be a general election on 7 June, I believe that it was a missed opportunity to consider turnouts in general elections, which is of interest to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I could be accused of having a sell-interest in what I am about to propose. I tabled an amendment to move the date of the elections from 7 to 10 June. I had two reasons for doing that. First, it would enable us to see whether we could improve the turnout by having elections at weekends instead of mid-week. My second reason was out of self-interest. We have an honourable tradition in my constituency on the Thursday in June known as Lanark Lanimer day. That may sound like a local or constituency issue, but people come home to Lanark and Clydesdale from all over the world to attend the celebrations, and they have been cancelled on three or four occasions. They had to be postponed on 11 June 1987, the day on which I was elected, and that may happen again this time.
  Mr. Tyler: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The last general election took place on 1 May, a date on which people from all over the world come to Padstow in my constituency for the "'obby 'oss" celebrations. On that occasion, we simply told everyone that their votes would count more if they reached the polling stations before 11 am, because after that time they might be—in one way or another—incapacitated. It worked like a dream: we had a 60 per cent. poll by 11 am.
  Mr. Hood: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he supports my wish to protect Lanimer day in Lanark on 7 June, but I assure him that it is impossible to organise such a day in my constituency and deal with a general election at the same time.
  I made that point from a constituency point of view. I strongly support the way in which the Government are dealing with the crisis in the rural communities. I hesitate to criticise our media, but let me issue a sincere and constructive criticism. The media are the first to tell politicians when we are talking down the national interest, and the first to lecture us in that regard. It is important for them to report the facts, but I have seen the same cows burn for three weeks on the same television station. I have seen the same pictures of corpses that were killed and disposed of three or four weeks ago. Throughout the media, an image is being presented that is far worse than the reality.
  I believe that the Government are dealing with the situation as best they can, and that that is acceptable. Our media should be responsible: they should report the facts, but they should also support the Government's action in looking after the national economy and saving our rural communities and the tourism industry in those communities. If they do so, they will serve not only the democracy that we are discussing, but industry and the country.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my colleagues on new clause 1, although I do not think that
  430
  it is perfect. I am sure they will accept that, and also accept the argument of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) that it contains an element of open-endedness. It is always less than desirable for the House to place too much power in the hands of the Government of the day, especially this Government. I am looking at the Minister now. We know how well the Government can abuse the power that resides in their hands if we do not hold them to account.
  Having said that, I still believe that my colleagues have done the House a service in drawing up, in a very short time, a detailed new clause that seeks to address the real problem we face. Although the Bill is designed to deal specifically with local elections, in my case the Hampshire county council elections, all Members of Parliament know—and, even if we are not prepared to acknowledge it, everyone outside the House knows—that what we are talking about is, potentially, the date of the next general election. There is no point in our deceiving ourselves in that regard.
  I think that what we are doing by means of the new clause is helping the Government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to fulfil the commitment that they gave the country on Monday. We know that the whole country was geared up—certainly, the media and the party political machines were—for local elections on 3 May. We know that plans had been made for a general election, but there was grave disquiet in the country. If we as politicians had been seen to be putting ourselves first and failing to give 100 per cent, effort to the campaign to eradicate the tragic disease of foot and mouth, which is causing such misery and anguish in rural communities, the Government would have paid a heavy penalty at the polls, local and national. It was for that reason that the Prime Minister made a judgment, assisted by Mr. Trevor Kavanagh and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) no doubt, that such was the gravity of the situation in our rural communities that the local elections at least should be put off.
  The point that I want to make is not a novel one; it has been made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government follow the logic of their argument, they have impaled themselves and boxed themselves into a corner—if I may mix my metaphors—by inserting 7 June in the Bill.
  On Monday, the Home Secretary told us that there was a need, as the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) said, to keep the country open. The Home Secretary went on:
  "On the other side of the equation, however, is the need for national and, in some areas, local politicians to be focused on the fight against foot and mouth disease as the necessary machinery to deal with any eventuality is put in place; and the feelings and sensitivities of people in the communities most severely affected by that dreadful disease."—[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 21.]
  By the mechanism of the new clause, my right hon. and hon. Friends have provided four objective tests. I submit that those tests are a darn sight more objective than the five economic tests that the Government have set up as Aunt Sallies for the scrapping of the pound, and they are four reasonably objective tests. Clearly, they are not 100 per cent. watertight, but, if come the beginning or middle of May there is still no improvement in the terrible foot and mouth epidemic, how on earth can the

  431
  Government possibly proceed with local elections and—the subtext—the general election? The same conditions will apply that applied on Monday when the Prime Minister gave his presidential address outside No. 10 to tell the nation rather than the House that he was putting the national interest before party interest.
  We are trying to help the Government because if there is no significant improvement, if the tests are not met come 4, 5, 8 or 14 May, the Prime Minister will be left marooned on a sandbank. He will have no get-out by which to postpone the elections on 7 June. Far from being in the interests of the Conservative party, the new clause offers the Government a way out. It certainly offers the Prime Minister—we know how resentful most of his Back Benchers are at his solo decision—a way out.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central identified the risk in the new clause. That is a risk that the Opposition are prepared to accept. We believe that it would be wrong to put party before country. We must put country first and not party. The duty of politicians is to focus our every endeavour on eradicating the disease. The Opposition have by the new clause provided a mechanism by which the Government can do that.
  If the Government do not accept the new clause, and the epidemic does not relent, they will stand accused of having failed to listen to the arguments and to take advantage of a flexible mechanism by which they could have continued to bend every sinew to ensure that the disease was eradicated, rather than committing themselves irrevocably to holding a series of local elections, and indeed a general election, on 7 June.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), because the debate is in part about something dear to his heart: the constitutional nature of our political arrangements. The new clause would introduce a remarkable constitutional innovation: that the blisters around a sheep's mouth and the sores around a cattle hoof should determine whether democratic elections take place. I have searched Bagehot and the constitutional histories available in the Library, and nowhere is it stated that the condition of agricultural livestock should be the variable factor determining the movable feast of when elections take place.
  The conditions in paragraphs (a) to (d) read as though they have been downloaded from an old MAFF website. We welcome the conditions that
  "the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed";
  that
  "movement restrictions have been lifted from most farms";
  and that
  "the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward".
  We are perhaps less keen on the condition suggesting that opinion polls should show significant gains for the Conservative party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) put his finger on it when he said that it was a matter of political judgment. It is a tribute to the flexibility of our constitution that the Prime Minister could take the decision that he took and listen to the nation. Judging
  432
  from the parliamentary Labour party meeting this morning, he did so with pretty much the unanimous support of Labour Members of Parliament.
  I asked some friends in the United States what it would take for any American election to be postponed or varied. Would it happen if "The X-Files" proved to be true; if aliens landed; or if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) became an American citizen? I asked them whether, if any such natural disaster befell the American people, elections would be suspended. They listened in complete incomprehension. We should take cognisance of the fact that, in putting off an election even for one month, we are probably alone in the democratic world.
  I am certainly happy, at this time of night, when no one is taking a great deal of notice, to make the argument for fixed-term Parliaments, which would obviate completely the discussions that we have been having in the past few weeks.
  Hon. Members will have heard the alarming news that a large number of tuberculosis cases have been reported at a school in Leicester, and that the local medical authorities talked of a virulent disease that could spread rapidly, even beyond the confines of the school. All animals with foot and mouth get better, and it poses no human health risk, so were I a Leicester parent, I would be asking why obsessive media attention has been concentrated in recent weeks on the fact that hundreds of thousands of our cows and sheep have caught a very nasty cold, with foot and mouth ulcers.
  We have suspended elections and the House has been utterly pre-occupied with that, whereas I suspect that children and parents in Leicester are in very great fear. Their situation, however, has commanded not nearly the same attention as the elections have received from the gentlemen of the press in the Gallery and from Conservative Members.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is really rather an endearing specimen in the House in that he is almost invariably off message, despite the fact that he is on the payroll vote. When he is on message, however, it seems to be only by accident. Will he confirm that he is profoundly opposed to any postponement, as seems to be the subtext of his remarks today, and that even if the foot and mouth contagion dramatically worsened in the next four weeks, he would still want all elections to go ahead? That is the burden of the position that is being expressed by a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister.
  Mr. MacShane: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, as always, is react my lips—or rather my speech in tomorrow's Hansard, where my meaning will be perfectly plain. He may like me to repeat what I have just said, but I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would not. Nevertheless, one of the pleasures of debating with the equally endearing hon. Gentleman is that, regardless of how often hon. Members tell him that one and one are two, he pops up and insists that they are one and a half or three or four or five, or that in any case it is all a European plot to take over the British arithmetic system. I therefore invite him to read tomorrow's Hansard.
  The borough of Rotherham in which my constituency lies is 65 per cent, rural and there was great concern when,over the weekend, a foot and mouth case was reported.

  433
  Fortunately, however, it turned out to be a false alarm. Nevertheless, 283 sheep in one herd were slaughtered, to the great anger of the farmer, and a local country park was closed. I am talking to Rotherham borough council about reopening the park because I think that many of our municipal authorities have grossly over-reacted to the situation. At times they want to be a little more Whitehall than Whitehall and a little more jobsworth than jobsworth, but it is time that our countryside was reopened.
  Earlier, in describing what I think he said was his 600 square mile constituency in Lanarkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydeidale (Mr. Hood) commented on whether people could vote. One matter that has received very little attention or publicity in this debate on when the general election might or might not be held is the quiet revolution that has occurred in democratic accessibility. The Government can be rightly proud of wiping away all the bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining a postal vote.
  I do not know whether you vote any more, Mr. Speaker. I think that, constitutionally, you are still allowed to vote—although I know that you are now above such minor things as ballot boxes. Nevertheless, you, me, the Prime Minister, every hon. Member and every one of our voting citizens no longer has to go to a voting booth before 11 am or after 11 am—intoxicated by the rhetoric of Liberal Democrat candidates or otherwise—or wait until the evening to cast a vote. Now, every one of our citizens can apply for a postal vote without a cross-signature from a doctor or anyone else and cast a vote without going to a voting booth.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who has left the Chamber—is a great admirer of American elections, and I have had very profitable discussions with him about the American political system. In the state of Oregon, people can vote only by post. I think that, in due course, perhaps in new Labour's third or fourth term, we will be able to move to electronic voting and to cast our vote in many different ways. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham is interrupting again from a sedentary position, as is his wont. He will become a virtual Member of Parliament—small, perfectly formed, and for ever available on dot.com from Conservative central office.
  I hope that there is no more cant from Conservative Members about shifting the election on 7 June off to the Greek calends. The people of this country accept that foot and mouth must be tackled. However, at the risk of making special pleading, I must tell the House that thousands of my constituents are steelworkers, and they face a bleak and miserable family future. The Conservatives utter not a word of sympathy or concern about them, and neither do their puppet masters in the press.
  My steelworker constituents may ask themselves whether the constitution can be changed and elections postponed so that their needs can be considered and met. I tell them that that cannot be done. Winston Churchill went to Potsdam in May 1945 and came back a defeated Prime Minister. That great treaty was concluded by Clement Attlee, and in those days the British people—the voters of Rotherham and Buckingham—did not let a little thing like an unfinished world war stop an election.
  We should have the election on 7 June. We need no more cant and excuses, nor any more cynical new clauses that are merely a way to delay matters in the interest of
  434
  one party. In the next term, or in the third or fourth Labour term, we should examine the idea of fixed-term Parliaments and the matter of making postal voting and other forms of voting more accessible.
  No matter what disaster befalls our nation, our strength lies in holding elections and in being the world's oldest democracy. We should not put off people's right to vote when the time comes.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is an amiable cove, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) charitably christened him. He has a wonderful gift for verbal dexterity, as he can talk about nothing at inordinate length. However, I have never in my life heard so much codswallop spoken in 10 minutes.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham would have been amusing and diverting had he not trivialised an extremely important matter. His reference to a herd of sheep summarised his notions and knowledge of the countryside. From now on, I shall think of him as the cows' shepherd—hut I will not be led by him. [Interruption.] If impertinence, discourtesy and lack of chivalry have been demonstrated, it was by the gesture that the hon. Gentleman just made, not by my joke. That is typical of the triviality with which we are dealing this evening.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned news of tuberculosis in Leicester. I had not heard that news, which is, of course, very serious. I am sure that all hon. Members take it seriously. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to try and develop an argument from that, and to make the extrapolation that foot and mouth was no more serious than a common cold.
  I should like to take the hon. Member for Rotherham to my constituency, and introduce him to some of the people there who are suffering. I should like him to meet the farmer who rang yesterday to tell me that he had a very modest income of £14,000 a year, and that he got it in three tranches. He said that the first tranche came when he sold his spring lambs, the second when he sold cows at Christmas, and that the third came at harvest time when he sold produce from his fields. This year, my farmer will get nothing from his spring lambs. They do not have foot and mouth, but they cannot be moved or sold, so my farmer has no income; nor is he eligible for any help from the state.
  9.45 pm
  I rang up the Inland Revenue's famous hotline and was told that his case could not be dealt with until July. I would like to take the hon. Member for Rotherham to meet that farmer. I would like him to meet the farmer's four children and his wife. I would like him to meet some of the other people who are afflicted and distressed by this most terrible scourge.
  I have a very high regard for the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), not least because my son stood in the Scottish parliamentary election in his constituency. He is a chivalrous gentleman, who is rightly admired by his constituents. That was quite apparent when we walked around the constituency. He has an understanding of both the urban and the rural communities.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham should be thoroughly ashamed of himself: he should be cringing as I speak. All over this country, in Devon, Cumbria and Staffordshire—

  435
  where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) knows, there are 44 cases of foot and mouth—there are people whose lives' work is being burned before their eyes. There are people whose families do not know where the next bread will come from. There are people in rural communities whose businesses—some third, fourth or fifth generation—are collapsing.
  Mr. MacShane: What about the election?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It is because there is some recognition of this plight that the Prime Minister—belatedly, I believe—came round to the view that it would be an insult to those people to go to the country with any sort of election on 3 May. The Prime Minister's decision is entirely right and has the wholehearted support of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I should just like to develop this point and then perhaps I will.
  I tabled an amendment in Committee that was very similar to this new clause. It could not be debated because there was not enough time, Mr. Speaker, and you know why. You were very kind and said that manuscript amendments could be accepted on Report, which is why we are having this debate now. We have tabled the amendments to tell the Prime Minister that we welcome what he has done but do not think that he has recognised quite what a crisis this is. He is saying that the disease is not under control so that we cannot go to the country, locally or nationally, on 3 May. We are simply asking how he can be so certain that the disease will be under control on 7 June.
  Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Just a minute. If the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who made a brief but sensible speech, had said that we ought to have gone for a date in July or September, Conservative Members might well have been content with that. We are not worried about the results of the county council elections, because every poll predicts that we shall do extremely well. That is not what concerns us. However, we are extremely worried that the country may still, in whole or in part, be in the grip of this dreadful disease on 7 June. If so, it would be as improper to go to the country then as it would on 3 May.
  We are seeking to build some flexibility into the Bill, so that, by affirmative resolution, Parliament can move a date either for the whole country or for those parts of the country in which the disease is still rampant.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share my suspicions that the Government are beginning to believe their own rhetoric? Is he aware that MAFF inspectors are saying to Members of Parliament—perhaps they are saying it to him, as they are certainly telling me—that they believe that the position in Staffordshire now is as it was in Cumbria three and a half to four weeks ago?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend has to say that. He is right: we are all worried
  436
  in Staffordshire. In one village in my constituency 10 days ago there were piles of dead and rotting sheep for three days, waiting to be disposed of in five or six fields. Some people were going to look at them, taking their dogs to look at them and doing all sorts of other macabre and stupid things. Yes, it does worry us.
  I hope that the disease will be under control by 7 June. I hope that there will be no need for further movement of the election date, but anyone who attended the presentation that the Minister of Agriculture kindly arranged in the Grand Committee Room today must have come away feeling worried by some of the things that we heard. If those predictions are right, it would be grossly improper to go to the country.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that 7 June may be too soon, but if they feel that, would it not have been better for the Opposition to have tabled an amendment that named a single alternative date rather than an amendment that leaves it to the Government of the day to decide the date, which could be months or, technically, years ahead?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman knows that it could not be years ahead. It could be the autumn—I do not know. We believe that it should be reasonably open ended because of the severity of the outbreak, which has now topped 1,000 cases.
  Mr. Gapes: Was the hon. Gentleman in favour of an immediate general election last September, as called for by his leader, when my constituents were suffering from the effects of the blockades that were encouraged by the Opposition?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I was not in favour. I am on the record as not having been in favour of an election in February 1974 or June 1987. This is the one issue on which I agree this evening with the hon. Member for Rotherham. I personally believe in fixed-term Parliaments.
  I am not in favour of setting in stone a date that may well be wholly unsuitable when the countryside is still bleeding. I finish where I began, with the hon. Member for Rotherham. I hope that he will look not just at the statistics but at the human misery behind those statistics. I hope that he will have real cause not to grin like an inane nonentity but to appreciate just what a crisis the countryside is in.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Foot and mouth disease is indeed harrowing for those farming areas that are directly affected. I represent a rural area, and yesterday animals were being culled in my area of Warwickshire. However, it is not just a local issue for those farming areas directly affected. It is a national problem. It is important that parliamentarians can come together to express support for those in the farming and tourism industries who are most directly affected. The Government have been careful in seeking to balance the need to ensure that Ministers and the Prime Minister can focus on foot and mouth disease and the need to ensure that people have a chance to vote for their local representatives. It is a serious matter to postpone elections.
  Mr. Hawkins: In the light of what he has just said, responding with appropriate seriousness to the matter,

  437
  will the Minister take the opportunity publicly to dissociate himself from the disgraceful remarks made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)?
  Mr. O'Brien: Hon. Members will have heard my expressions of concern about foot and mouth disease and can draw their own conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is someone who adds to debates in the House, is often controversial, and expresses views which others may not dare to express. That is what the people of Rotherham elect him to do—to speak out and say what he thinks. He does so with great care for the people of Rotherham. I commend him for speaking in that way, but I also have my own views which may not always agree with his.
  We need to ensure that we treat these matters with care. Parliament indicated that it wanted certainty as to the date of local government elections; the legislation will set out that certainty.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way; we have limited time and I have a series of points to make. I have been generous in taking interventions on previous occasions.
  Our judgment on the balance between the democratic right of people to vote for their local representatives and the need to recognise the concerns of the farming community especially, but also of the tourist industry, has led us to the conclusion that we need a postponement of the 3 May elections. I am pleased with the general support in the House for that.
  We also believe that there is a need for certainty as to the date on which that election will take place. The amendments and new clauses all seek the same objective: to remove the fixed date till which the local elections have been deferred.
  There are a number of reasons why it is not a good idea to leave that date open. First, we should carefully consider the interpretation that would be placed on the decision to delay indefinitely the local elections on people who may be considering visiting the United Kingdom from abroad, or indeed on our home-grown tourist industry. It is in the interests of every citizen—town arid country dwellers—and not least of those farmers who have diversified into other areas of business that rely on the tourist trade, that we restore confidence in our tourism as quickly as possible.
  New clause 1, which would allow the elections to take place on different dates in different counties, is particularly unfortunate in that regard. Hon. Members should imagine the message that would go out to potential tourists from abroad: "You can go to Dorset, but not to Wiltshire which is still closed. Somerset will open next month." That would do nothing to restore confidence in this country as a destination.
  Secondly, we must take into account the position of councillors who intend to stand down at the next election. Although it is reasonable to expect most of them to accept a short delay, it most certainly is not reasonable to expect them to continue in office with no idea of when their term of office will cease, leaving them unable to make plans for the future.
  438
  Of course, a councillor may resign his office at any time, and the Government are grateful in the expectation that most councillors will accept a short extension of their term of office—as envisaged in the Bill. However, it would be quite unfair to prevail on their good will, as an open-ended deferral of local elections would do.
  The third reason relates to democracy. Given some of the past actions of the Conservatives in abolishing democratically elected local institutions, it is no surprise that democracy may not be at the forefront of their minds. However, it is not right for the political make-up of councils to be determined by the vagaries of carrying unfilled vacancies, so that local people have no idea when they can restore the council that they have chosen, or choose a different one. They will have no certainty as to the date when they could do that. That would be wrong. A councillor might die or retire; the balance of the council would change, contrary to the will of the electorate, but nothing could be done for a prolonged period—until all the conditions set out in the new clause were met. That is not the right way to proceed.
  All the points that I have set out illustrate the importance of certainty as to when local elections will be held. Those hon. Members who have put their names to the proposal to postpone the elections until specific conditions for controlling and eradicating foot and mouth disease are met on an area-by-area basis are proposing a recipe for local government chaos. I make that point in sadness: Parliament would regularly have to turn its attention needlessly to when a local election could take place in a given locality. That is not a serious way to proceed.
  Certainty is what Parliament called for in local elections; certainty is what our Bill will provide. I therefore ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause; or if they do press it to a Division, I would ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Mr. Hawkins: I have no intention of withdrawing the motion. We wish to press it to a Division because we feel extremely strongly that the new clause is needed, as it would introduce the required element of flexibility.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 336.

  Division No. 179]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Arness, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Collins, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gran, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Brady, Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  439

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Fit Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian

  Roe. Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Greenway, John

  Ross. William (E Lond'y)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpdon, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Smyth Rev Martin (Belfast S>

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Hora, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Key Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Thompson, William

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tredinnick, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wells, Bowen

  Loughton, Tim

  Whrttingdale, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wilkinson, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mates, Michael

  Mr. James Gray and

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ainger, Nick

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ashton, Joe

  Browne, Desmond

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burgon, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Burstow, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beard, Nigel

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Casale, Roger

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Caton, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cawsey, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chaytor, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clapham, Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  440

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harvey, Nick

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David (Somerfon & Frome)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tiy S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

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

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Joyce, Eric

  Doran, Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Efford, Clive

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Flynn, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galloway, George

  Lock, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCrea, Dr William

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hancock, Mike

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  441

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin

  Soley, Clive

  Moffatt, Laura

  Spellar, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Steinberg, Gerry

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

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Norris, Dan

  Stringer, Graham

  Oaten, Mark

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Todd, Mark

  Pike, Peter L

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Pope Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rapson, Syd

  Watts, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Webb, Steve

  Rendel, David

  White, Brian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rooney, Terry

  Willis, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wills, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Election Publications Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short, one-purpose Bill has been introduced following representations by all three main political parties. The issue arose from discussions between the Conservative party and the Electoral Commission, which established that the Conservatives were concerned about the new legislation. The Conservative party discussed the issue with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and all three then made representations. The Bill is in response to their concerns.
The Bill postpones the operation of the new requirements relating to the imprint on election publications, which were introduced by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I emphasise that we are not repealing those new requirements, but simply delaying their commencement to assist political parties. The Bill is not about correcting defects in the 2000 Act.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to set out what the Bill does, I shall happily give way to him.
The Bill reverses what, in hindsight, may have been an overly rapid implementation of two provisions in the 2000 Act, given that political parties were not yet in a position in which they were prepared or able to comply with them. In those circumstances it is right that we listen to representations. From the start, we have said that we wanted to make progress on the legislation on the basis of consensus and consultation with political parties, and we have tried to take that approach throughout.
Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I may advance my arguments a little more, then I shall happily give way to Opposition Members.
It may assist the House if I briefly explain the background to the Bill. By definition, all right hon. and hon. Members have been candidates in one or more previous elections for Parliament. I trust, therefore, that we are all familiar with the long-standing requirement in section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that our election leaflets and posters bear an imprint stating the name and address of the printer and publisher. In its old guise, section 110 applied only to material that sought to promote or disparage a particular candidate; it did not apply to national material promoting or disparaging a political party. Section 143 of the 2000 Act made good that omission. Paragraph 14 of schedule 18 to

443
that Act substituted a new section 110 in the 1983 Act. The new section 110 sought to make the provenance of any election material clearer.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment, but when I have set out what the Bill is about I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Mr. Fabricant: Do not forget me.
Mr. O'Brien: I will not forget the hon. Gentleman. How could I? He is a neighbour of mine and regularly appears in my local press. Indeed, I sometimes think that I cannot get away from his smiling face in the newspapers.
The new section 110 sought to make the provenance of election material clear to everyone, and did so by replacing the requirement to name the publisher with a requirement to identify the promoter and the person on behalf of whom the material is being published. The promoter is the person who calls for the material to be published and would normally be a candidate's election agent; the person on behalf of whom the material is being published would normally be the candidate himself. The new provisions relating to national electoral use deploy identical terminology.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall explain what the Bill is about and then happily give way. Following Royal Assent, we consulted the main parties on the timetable for commencement in relation to section 143 and the new section 110. We proposed that they should come into force along with much of the rest of the 2000 Act as quickly as possible—that is, on 16 February. Unfortunately, at that time, none of the parties dissented and the order was made accordingly.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent, so I shall give way.
Mr. Grieve: One of my tasks was to take the 2000 Act through Committee on behalf of the Opposition. Will the Minister concede that one feature of discussion in Committee was that both the principle of various changes and the practicability of their implementation could be explored? Because he denied the House the opportunity to discuss section 143 when it came back from the House of Lords, there was no opportunity for Members to apply their practical experience to the difficulties that its implementation might cause. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the letter from the Government makes no reference to section 143 or the problems that might surround its implementation.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. He knows, as does everyone who watches
444
proceedings in this place, that sometimes the Opposition—I suppose that it applies to almost any Opposition—seem to judge the quality of legislation by the length of their speeches, rather than by the quality of the drafting and the objective of making good law.
The part of the Bill under discussion was inserted in the legislation in July last year. There was plenty of time for consultation. We have always made sure that we were open to representations on the Bill from the Conservative party and any other political party. We have always emphasised our desire to move forward by way of consultation and consensus. The hon. Gentleman knows that there were opportunities for the Opposition to raise the issue in consultation or in other ways.
With regard to the letter, it is a matter for the political parties to examine the legislation and decide whether they have any points to raise. That is the purpose of the letter. We did not intend 10 set out the entire Bill in the letter that we sent to the political parties. We wanted to know whether they had any objection to our inserting particular provisions into the law.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious of the time. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and other hon. Members have also asked me to give way. I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for the last time.
Mr. Grieve: I thank the Minister. He says that the Opposition did not respond, but presumably his own party did not respond, either. I understand that at least some of its national literature and posters do not conform with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Mr. O'Brien: That is not quite true. In the consultation period from December to January, the Labour party did not respond on the particular point. Although it did not object to the implementation of the provisions that we suggested, the Labour party did comment on them in July last year, in a telephone call, but that is all. There was no objection from the Labour party, the Conservatives or any of the political parties.
Subsequently, by 16 February, the parties and candidates throughout the country were already preparing for the county council elections. Many of us have experience of unpacking boxes of old leaflets and posters, and re-using them in later elections. Any such material would have borne the old "printer and publisher" imprint. In many cases, new material would have been commissioned without taking into account the new imprint requirements.
What is to be done in that situation? One option would have been for the parties and candidates to pulp the existing stocks of material and to arrange for new leaflets and posters to be printed. The political parties could have done that, at enormous cost and with some difficulty. However, the three main parties have made it clear to us that such an option was neither practical nor realistic. After due consideration, we accepted that, and in line with our wish

445
to proceed by way of consensus and consultation, we agreed to accept the representations made by the three main parties.
Mr. Beith: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), then to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and then to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).
Mr. Fabricant: In his introduction, the Minister said that the Bill represented not a cancellation of legislation, but a postponement. It may be my lack of drafting skills, but I cannot find the date until which the legislation is to be postponed. Can the Minister clarify that?
Mr. O'Brien: The postponement is not until a particular date. We believe that the matter should be dealt with through consultation with the political parties. We want to enter into discussion not only with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who in the past have been willing to discuss such matters, but with the Conservative party. I hope that, having learned its lesson that consultation is important, the Conservative party will engage seriously in discussions not only about this part of the political parties legislation, but in relation to other issues in the legislation that has already been passed but which has not yet come into force—where commencement provisions have not yet been enacted. I hope that the Conservative and other parties will engage in consultation about the effect on them and on the political process. We need to get it right. We are dealing with a new aspect of law and it is unsurprising that there are some teething troubles with a new area of regulation. The difficulty in question is one of those teething troubles. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that we commenced the new imprint requirements too soon. The best course is, therefore, to suspend the process and to re-establish the status quo ante.
Mr. Beith: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that a further problem came to light only a few weeks ago? I refer to the difficulty of obtaining consistent and practical advice—a difficulty that was faced by the Electoral Commission, among others. Some of the advice suggested that the name of every candidate in a multi-candidate election would have to appear within the imprint. In the light of that lack of consistency, surely it is necessary for some agreement to be reached before the Bill is enacted on what constitutes a proper imprint.
Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman raised that issue when he met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. I think that that meeting occurred two weeks ago. It seemed to us that the legislation was unclear. We believe that we can deal with the matter through consultation and, if necessary, by providing clarification on the way in which we should proceed. The Bill gave us the opportunity to proceed in that manner. Clause 2 sets out how we propose to proceed in relation to election publications.
Mr. Leigh: In my experience, when a Bill is enacted, it is usually supported by at least one of the political parties that are represented in the House. The provisions
446
were wrong in the first place because there was not sufficient time to consider them. The Under-Secretary will have noted that we have to finish Second Reading, the Committee stage and Third Reading by 11 o'clock. If we proceed by order and then counter-order, disorder will be the eventual result. We are now in the counter-order stage of our proceedings. Is not he worried that we might be rushing things again? Does he plan to allow the other place to give these provisions more detailed consideration? Let us get it right this time.
Mr. O'Brien: The Bill was introduced at the request of the Conservative party and of all the main political parties. We hope, therefore, that there is broad agreement on it. We have done our best to ensure that the drafting is correct. I thank the parliamentary draftsmen and officials who worked very hard at short notice to ensure that the Bill was in a proper condition to come before the House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to extend such thanks in relation to the Elections Bill, on which officials and draftsmen also worked hard.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The Under-Secretary made it clear in his answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the existing legislation is defective and needs amendment. Why do the Government think it reasonable to amend that legislation by issuing a fiat in a Henry VIII clause, without providing any opportunity whatever for the House to consider amendments?
Mr. O'Brien: We are not repealing the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my opening remarks, he would be aware that we are postponing commencement in relation to a part of the legislation. We still intend to proceed with new section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but only after we have had the opportunity to consult the political parties. I hope that they will engage in the consultation with more alacrity and clarity than they have in the past. The measure is not defective and we propose to proceed with it. It is a question of when we commence that process.
We could have dealt with the existing legislation in many ways. We could have said that Parliament had decided the law and that our candidates should pulp what they had done wrong. However, we did not think that such a course of action would be consistent with the consultative and open-minded approach that we sought to adopt in order to gain the support not only of other Opposition parties, but of the Conservative party. There was no opposition to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The Conservatives did not vote against it. If I remember rightly, they abstained on Third Reading and did not dissent. I think also that, a number of times, they gave broad support to the general principles of the Neill report, whose implementation they wanted. There was much in that Bill that had broad support.
It is all too easy for hon. Members to criticise our parliamentary draftsmen. Drafting is an art, and they are experienced, but not infallible. Hon. Members should be

447
careful in criticising public servants who work very hard to try to ensure that they do their best for Parliament. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise. The Minister is entitled to put his case.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.
Clause 1 rescinds the commencement of section 143 of the 2000 Act and new section 110 of the 1983 Act. The natural consequence of that is to restore the position as at 16 February. In effect, it is as if the old section 110 had continued to operate after that date.
Because we still see merit in the new imprint requirements, clause 2 enables them to be reactivated by order, and it is our intention to do so in due course. I cannot at this stage offer the House a date, not least because we want to consult the Electoral Commission and political parties before we make a decision.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment.
I hope that all the parties and the Electoral Commission will engage in that consultation.
Clause 3 includes a saving for any election publication that complies with new section 110. That saving will apply from 16 February 2001 to the date on which new section 110 is restored. During that transitional period, local material that complies with either the old or the new section 110 will be lawful. I hope that that reassures hon. Members and political parties. Although that option is there, my advice to anyone producing new material would be to comply with new section 110 so that any stocks left over from this year's elections could be reused at a later date. Of course, many Conservative candidates may well want to try their hand again after they have lost.
The circumstances surrounding the Bill are clearly a little unusual, but it is a necessary measure to deal with—
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to protect the House in this situation? We now have 28 minutes left for the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill, and the Minister has not yet concluded his remarks. Are you satisfied the House has sufficient time to discharge its responsibilities in the complete passage of a Bill, when the Minister is still on his feet with 28 minutes left?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The time for which the Minister speaks is entirely a matter for him, but I hope that the whole House will bear the time very much in mind.
Mr. O'Brien: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have taken many interventions because I
448
wanted to ensure that hon. Members had the opportunity to contribute, but I shall accept no more because the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes the view that Ministers who do so should be penalised. I am trying, genuinely to assist the House, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks to use that to score cheap points. That is uncharacteristic of him; normally his points are much better considered.
Given that the county council elections will occur within nine weeks if the other place agrees with the Elections Bill passed by the House. I hope that the House will understand the need for this Bill to be enacted as quickly as possible. That will require the all-party support that was evident in another place, and I hope that the Bill will receive that here.
10.34 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: It is astonishing that the Minister made no reference to the fact that all stages of the Bill were scheduled to be considered until any hour on Monday this week, when it could have been given proper scrutiny and attention. It is a disgrace that the Government are attempting to pass it in three quarters of an hour.
The Minister was right to say that the Opposition welcome the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, we might want to change our minds. The Bill has cross-party support, and I know that the parties appreciate the way in which the Home Secretary has taken difficult decisions. In introducing the Bill, however embarrassing it may be for him personally or for his Department corporately, he is discharging his duties as Home Secretary.
Despite the fact that the Home Secretary is providing a solution to the problem that the political parties face, the Bill could easily be renamed the Laurel and Hardy Bill, because it is the product of yet another fine mess the Government have got us into—and have even managed to get the Labour party into. I am sure that the Home Secretary does a very good Stan Laurel, but I shall not venture to suggest who in the Department is Oliver Hardy.
As the Minister said, the Bill was tabled in response to concerns expressed by all the main parties about the changes that have been made.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: When we had discussions with the chief executive of the Conservative party, we made it clear that we were prepared to listen to representations from his party but that we did not want cheap party political points thrown around as the hon. Lady has just been doing. That cheapens debate in this place, and makes her appear more of a Laurel and Hardy figure than anyone else.
Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that I took the Minister's intervention. A few weeks ago, I was doing a phone-in on the Ed Doolan show. I talked to a pensioner and then a mother with a young child. Suddenly we had a phone call from Mike of Warwickshire. He was apparently a constituent from Warwickshire who phoned in to ask my views on the Hunting Bill and how I intended to vote. I do not know who Mike from Warwickshire was, but when the Minister rose to make his intervention the word "prat", which went through my mind at the time, occurred to me again. I shall take no more interventions from the hon. Gentleman. He knows who he was.
Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue is no longer the rights or wrongs of the Bill but the fact

449
that, now that the Minister has sat down having opened the Second Reading debate, we have only 28 minutes for the remainder of Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading? That is unheard of, and—as if that were not enough—when the Opposition question the Minister, he says that all deals are off and that they are not allowed to criticise the Government. Neither time nor criticism is allowed. Are we the Supreme Soviet or the British Parliament?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a disgrace that, although the Bill has all-party support, it arises from an Act of Parliament that was guillotined through the House. The very section that we are discussing was introduced in the House of Lords, and was never considered by the Commons on Second Reading or in Committee. It came back to the House and was guillotined through. It never had proper scrutiny in the first place.
It is a disgrace for the Minister to praise the draftsmen. He should take responsibility for the Government's failure to allow proper scrutiny of the original Bill before it became an Act of Parliament, and not keep bringing back dregs to the House of Commons so that we can put right the mess that the Government have created. Yes, the Bill has all-party support, but these proceedings are typical of this new Labour Government—all spin, no substance and no acknowledgement of their mistakes.
When this matter was discussed during proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Government tabled no fewer than 665 amendments in the House of Lords. The Minister mentioned July, but in fact this matter came before the other place on 18 October. Lord Bach spoke for the Government, but it was not even explained then. The detail of what the Government are now having to defer was never explained to the House of Commons, and nor was it the subject of detailed consultation with other parties.
In an earlier debate, the Home Secretary kindly gave me a copy of a letter dated December, which was sent to other parties. It did not deal with consultation on the substance of the Bill, but was about implementation. This part of the Bill has never been subject to consultation with political parties. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying from a sedentary position that it is about implementation. Had the substance of this part of the Bill ever been seen or discussed by this place, perhaps even a Labour Member would have noticed that it was flawed, and we would not have had to go through this charade tonight.
Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
Mrs. Browning: I will not give way to allow any more silly comments to be made by Labour Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye during the 20 minutes that remain for all stages of the Bill to be completed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I must tell the Minister that it is a disgrace that we are having to deal with this matter. It is also a disgrace that Ministers have implied tonight that there was a lack of consultation, or an unwillingness on the part of the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I invite the Minister to tell me precisely where the letter is that indicates that
450
the Conservative party was not prepared to consult on this part of the Bill. Where is the response that he received from the party saying that we did not wish to discuss the substance of the issues before the House? That was never offered to us. All that we received was a letter which—as the Labour party itself noted, because it failed itself to point out the Bill's inadequacies—contained no reference to what the Government intended by the change in regulations governing imprints in election material. That was never spelt out—not in another place, not here, and not even in the notices that the Government sent out seeking to advise people that they intended to implement the change.
The explanatory notes containing the details were not published until March. That is why political parties on both sides of the House failed to register exactly what the Government intended to do.
Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
Mrs. Browning: I shall be happy to give way to the Minister. I hope that he will justify the cheap allegations that he has been making about why the Conservative party did not respond. We were never asked to respond to the substance of the changes.
Mr. O'Brien: Let me say first that, obviously—as a Member of Parliament—I was invited to engage in debate with the hon. Lady on the Ed Doolan show. I am not sure why she made those silly points, but there we are. Those listening to the debate can decide for themselves.
Let me now deal with the substance. When my noble Friend Lord Bach raised these issues, Lord Cope said in reply:
None of us would disagree with the intention behind these clauses."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 1144.]
Let me add that throughout the debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and in Committee, it was clear that we were prepared to discuss all aspects of the Bill with the Conservative party. I cannot recall one occasion during the whole process on which the Conservatives entered into serious consultation with us on any part of the Bill. That is why I say now that we would welcome the Conservative party's engaging in serious consultation from now on, so that we can be sure we have a Bill that gets it right and has consensus behind it. I want that, and I want it to be taken seriously in future.
Mrs. Browning: If the Minister is serious about taking debate in the Chamber seriously, he and his Government should allow adequate time for debate and scrutiny. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was not given adequate time, and the result is the mess that we are having to tidy up tonight.
There was no filibustering in another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "There was no filibustering here."] There was no filibustering here either; but the Government tabled no fewer than 665 amendments in another place. When those amendments came to the House of Commons, unseen by Members, debate was guillotined. That included the part of the legislation that we are dealing with tonight.

451
There is much more that I could say—
Mr. Torn Levitt: The hon. Lady has not talked about the substance.
Mrs. Browning: I could talk for another 15 minutes, if the hon. Gentleman wanted me to. I will end, however, by saying that if Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had lived—he was the Conservative Front Bencher who originally took the Bill through the House of Lords—he would have laughed long and hard at the situation in which this House finds itself tonight. He worked hard to improve the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, just as he worked tirelessly in support of many other measures. Throughout his political career he has contributed to many Bills, and in another place he attempted to contribute to that Bill. If it does nothing else, this legislation reflects very clearly his last remarks about it. He observed that
"a lot of the devil was in the detail."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000: Vol. 619, c. 1188.]
I suspect that this is not the last time that the House will have to deal with the defects, flaws and lack of scrutiny of the original Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament.
The House having been advised that it would have sufficient time to debate all stages of the Bill on Monday night, it is an absolute disgrace that we are faced with just three quarters of an hour to deal with a Bill of such importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't disagree with it."] No, we do not, but even if we do agree with a Bill, the suggestion that we should pass it through the House without scrutiny shows the lack of understanding among Labour Members of what the job of Parliament—
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Other hon. Members have more sensible things to say in the short time that is left.
I am sure that there is a lot more detail and many more devils to come out of that legislation, which the House will have to sort out. This Bill will have our support because it is in everyone's interests that the mess be cleared up, but it is an affront to democracy and to the House that the Government have allowed just three quarters of an hour for us to deal with this important matter.
10.46 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I do not quite share the total outrage of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but this is very much the "Carry on Corporal Jones Bill." We have blundered into an error which—let us be frank, although this is not usually the place where one is frank—no one saw coming: not in this House, not in the other place, not in the political party headquarters.
452
When the interpretation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act by the Electoral Commission filtered through to the parties, we realised that the meaning of the provision was going to place a heavy imposition on the political process.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stunell: I shall, but the hon. Gentleman will have to be brief.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Does he not agree that one of the features of the Committee stage of the Bill in the Commons was that there was a complete spirit of co-operation? In the course of that discussion, numerous instances of this kind emerged, were discussed and were resolved simply because they came up for scrutiny, could be examined and could be dealt with. It is the failure to do that which shames the House and the way in which we operate our procedures.
Mr. Stunell: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on his interpretation of the procedures in Committee. Indeed, elsewhere, I have thanked the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Department for their approach to that legislation. That makes it all the more tedious and all the sadder that we have to revisit the matter tonight.
The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but there is an amendment standing in my name. I was hoping that the Minister might give way when he was speaking, so that he could answer the point. I hope that he might seek to intervene now to answer it because it is important.
The legislation that we are being invited to adopt tonight meets the immediate needs of the political parties and the political process, but clause 2 contains the bland wording:
"Introduction of new law …
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide".
It is that re-implementation process with which my amendment sought to deal. We will not reach that this evening but I would like to hear clearly from the Minister the process that the Government are prepared to write into Hansard as being the way forward, so that we know that we will not be at the behest of some future Secretary of State with less good manners and perhaps less good intentions than the current Home Secretary when it comes to re-implementation.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am happy to indicate how the Government would intend to proceed. This legislation, if Parliament agrees to it, will be able to stand the test of another year, I would have thought. In the meantime and certainly in the months to come, we would want to enter into serious discussions with each of the political parties, not just the three main ones, to get a view about how that particular provision and, indeed, other provisions of the legislation, should be dealt with.
I anticipate that we could allow several months for that to occur. I hope that, towards the end of the year, we will be in a position to say how we intend to proceed, having completed consultations. Then, no doubt following

453
discussions through the usual channels, we will be able to decide whether we need legislation and, if so, the precise terms of the instrument. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. I will be happy to answer any other questions that he has.
Mr. Stunell: I am grateful. The Minister referred in his speech to the electoral commissioners. It is extremely important that, having established the commission, we do not allow clause 2 to bypass it and the objective input that it was supposed to have in the management of the political process. We have been fortunate that, although the ownership of the electoral process has been in the hands of the Home Secretary, it has been so in a judicial rather than a political sense. We do not want the commissioners to be bypassed in a fudge.
Mr. O'Brien: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would want to consult the commissioners fully. Indeed, they were able to have advance sight of the clause. I understand that it went into the Bill in October but was drafted back in July.
Mr. Stunell: I am grateful. I hope that the record will show that we have had some reassurances that this necessary legislation has some of the safeguards around it that some of us seek. I welcome the Minister's offer of further consultation on wider matters, and I hope that all the parties, including the official Opposition, will take it up. It is clearly important to our democratic system to have widespread ownership of the electoral processes that we use.
Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am minded to table a manuscript amendment to give effect to some of the assurances that the Minister has given. Would such a manuscript amendment be acceptable to you, and how could it be debated in the eight minutes remaining, given that we have not finished Second Reading and five more hon. Members want to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is a hypothetical question, because we have not yet reached Committee stage.
Mr. Stunell: Bearing in mind the time, I simply say that I support the Bill and that I am grateful for such assurances as we have had.
10.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Bill addresses a problem that could have been foreseen if there had been adequate scrutiny. We are patching up matters with retrospective legislation, which is something of which we should always be wary. Indeed, I am not convinced that the Bill is needed at all. Why on earth cannot the Government simply instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions, through the Attorney-General, not to bring any prosecutions? If a private prosecution is brought, there is a well-established practice that the DPP can take it over and offer no evidence.
10.53 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: We all support what the Bill is intended to achieve, but I am concerned that, in a few days' time, we may have to come back to
454
it because we find a further lacuna, simply because there has not been adequate scrutiny. We do not have adequate time even for Second Reading, and we will have no Committee stage or Third Reading. We have only six minutes left.
On 11 April 2000, I wrote to the Home Secretary about how imprints ought to be applied to parliamentary websites. He replied on 18 May:
"You will not be surprised to learn that much of what you ask is not currently covered by electoral law as it stands. Of course, it is for the courts to interpret present statutes in the light of the evidence".
Although the Home Secretary went on to give some helpful guidance, it was merely guidance. If there had been more time to debate the Bill adequately, I would have tabled amendments—although I am surprised that the Bill does not already contain such provision—based on the Home Secretary's recommendations, so that people could be quite clear on the legality of websites appertaining to hon. Members and candidates in the forthcoming general election, whenever that is held. Currently, there is no clarity.
We have only five minutes left to consider the Bill, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and to ensure that there is clarity, my advice would be to use the new provision in section 110. All three categories—the printer, the publisher and the promoter—will be covered by that, so it is all there and all clear. Subsequently, when we implement the provisions, as I trust we will, the websites can be used. I hope that that provides some clarity. What we did not want to do was to catch out someone who still had some of the old material.
Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I know that it was intended to be helpful, but, sadly, it was not. The Bill does not, for example, deal with archival material or the use of the term MP in a uniform resource locator. They are dealt with in a letter, but not in the Bill. The Bill could have dealt with them if we had had adequate time to table amendments to it. Sadly, there is not time to do that. Sadly, yet again we see that the Government wish to deem legislation.
My fear is that we shall again have to consider this legislation in a week or two, when we discover that it is defective. Neither this Bill nor the original legislation would have been defective if we had had adequate time to scrutinise them. Time and again, however, the Government seem not to be prepared to learn that lesson.
10.57 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This is a grubby, seamy little measure and we really should not be giving it House room at all. It has arisen, of course, because this arrogant Government legislated without proper parliamentary process. A deal has apparently been done among political parties which cannot get their act together. Now we, the legislators, are supposed to cover up for that and change a law that we had been told was necessary. Originally, the Government said that the current arrangements were unnecessary and that the new arrangement was absolutely necessary. Now, they are saying that that was not the situation at all and that it has to be sorted out.

455
This is truly not the way in which we should use parliamentary process. It is not appropriate for legislation. What makes the situation worse is that, on Monday, we had an opportunity properly to debate, to scrutinise and possibly to amend the legislation. Then, the Government casually set aside that opportunity. Now, they have brought us here, under yet another guillotine, with 45 minutes in total to change the law of the land. That is utterly unacceptable and I hope that we will throw out the Bill.
10.58 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: We have already had the debate on the amount of time allocated to the Bill, so I do not want to make that point again. However, almost every hon. Member is trying to tell the House that this is an entirely straightforward Bill. What really concerned and worried me about this process was the Minister's interventions in the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and the fact that the Minister clearly felt that he had to intervene to clarify to the House the Government's intentions. If the Bill were as clear as everyone is making out, why did the Minister feel that he had to intervene not once, but twice in the hon. Gentleman's speech? The hon. Gentleman was making a perfectly serious speech in which he was not attacking the Government at all, but the Minister felt that he had to clarify the Government's proposals. Is the Bill as clear as the Government say it is?
I do not think that the Bill is clear. It deals with a very complex sphere of the law and with a matter that is of acute concern to all three political parties. One mistake has already been made. Can we, please, just pause for a second and get the legislation right? Can we have a proper Committee stage and not rush the Bill through in just one minute—which is all that we have now for the Bill's remaining stages? This is not good enough.
10.59 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: The Bill cannot be in compliance with the European convention on human rights because of the process by which it is being implemented. It is absolutely outrageous, and I shall vote against it.
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 327. Noes 4.

Division No. 180]

[11 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Barnes, Harry

Ainger, Nick

Barron, Kevin

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Battle, John

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Bayley, Hugh

Atherton, Ms Candy

Beard, Nigel

Atkins. Charlotte

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Austin, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Bailey, Adrian

Bercow, John

Banks, Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

456

Best, Harold

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Betts, Clive

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Blears, Ms Hazel

Flight, Howard

Blizzard, Bob

Flynn, Paul

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Follett, Barbara

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bradshaw, Ben

Galloway, George

Brazier, Julian

Gapes, Mike

Brinton, Mrs Helen

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Browne, Desmond

Gerrard, Neil

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gibson, Dr Ian

Buck, Ms Karen

Gill, Christopher

Burden, Richard

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Burgon, Colin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Butterfill, John

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Gray, James

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Grieve, Dominic

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Grogan, John

Cann, Jamie

Hain, Peter

Casale, Roger

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Caton, Martin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cawsey, Ian

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hammond, Philip

Chaytor, David

Hanson, David

Clapham, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hayes, John

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlanck;)

Heald, Oliver

Healey, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hendrick, Mark

Clelland, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Ann

Hesford, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Coleman, Iain

Hood, Jimmy

Colman, Tony

Hope, Phil

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Corbett, Robin

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corston, Jean

Howells, Dr Kim

Cousins, Jim

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cran, James

Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hutton, John

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Illsley, Eric

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davidson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

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

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Day, Stephen

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dobbin, Jim

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Joyce, Eric

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Donohoe, Brian H

Keeble, Ms Sally

Doran, Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dowd, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kidney, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Edwards, Huw

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Efford, Clive

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Given)

Fabricant, Michael

Kumar, Dr Ashok

457

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Purchase, Ken

Laxton, Bob

Quinn, Lawrie

Leigh, Edward

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Leslie, Christopher

Rammell, Bill

Levitt, Torn

Rapson, Syd

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Raynsford, Nick

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Rendel, David

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Linton, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lock, David

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Loughton, Tim

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Love, Andrew

Rowlands, Ted

Luff, Peter

Ruane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Russell, Mis Christine (Chester)

Sarwar, Mohammad

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sawford, Phil

Macdonald, Calum

Shaw, Jonathan

McDonnell, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McFall, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Skinner, Dennis

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McLoughlin, Patrick

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWalter, Tony

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

McWilliam, John

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Spellar, Jonn

Mallaber, Judy

Squire, Ms Rachel

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Maxton, John

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Stinchcombe, Paul

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Miller, Andrew

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Mitchell, Austin

Stringer, Graham

Moffatt, Laura

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stunell, Andrew

Moran, Ms Margaret

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

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

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mountford, Kali

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mudie, George

Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mullin, Chris

Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Tipping, Paddy

Norris, Dan

Todd, Mark

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Touhig, Don

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Trickett, Jem

O'Hara, Eddie

Truswell, Paul

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Or Desmond (Kemptown)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Turner, Or George (NW Norfolk)

Paterson, Owen

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pearson, Ian

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Perham, Ms Linda

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pickthall, Colin

Tynan, Bill

Pike, Peter L

Vis, Dr Rudi

Plaskitt, James

Walley, Ms Joan

Pollard, Kerry

Wareing, Robert N

Pond, Chris

Watts, David

Pope, Greg

Webb, Steve

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

White, Brian

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wicks, Malcolm

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Prosser, Gwyn

Wilkinson, John

458

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Worthington, Tony

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Willis, Phil

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wills, Michael

Wyatt, Derek

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Mike

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Woodward, Shaun

Mr. David Jamieson.

NOES

Amess, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Mr. Eric Forth and

Tyrie, Andrew

Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].
It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary for the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That clauses 1 to 3 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 314, Noes 2.

Division No. 181]

[11.11 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

Amess, David

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cann, Jamie

Atkins, Charlotte

Casale, Roger

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Caton, Martin

Austin, John

Cawsey, Ian

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bailey, Adrian

Chaytor, David

Banks, Tony

Clapham, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clelland, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bermingham, Gerald

Clwyd, Ann

Best, Harold

Coaker, Vernon

Betts, Clive

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coleman, Iain

Blizzard, Bob

Collins, Tim

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Colman, Tony

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Corston, Jean

Bradshaw, Ben

Cousins, Jim

Brazier, Julian

Cran, James

Brazier, Julian

Cranston, Ross

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Crausby, David

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Browne, Desmond

Cryer, Jonn (Hornchurch)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Buck, Ms Karen

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Burden, Richard

Davidson, Ian

Burgon, Colin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Butterfill, John

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

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dawson, Hilton

459

Day, Stephen

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Denham, Rt Hon John

Joyce, Eric

Dismore, Andrew

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dobbin, Jim

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Khabra, Piara S

Donohoe, Brian H

Kidney, David

Doran, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dowd, Jim

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Edwards, Huw

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Efford, Clive

Laxton, Bob

Fabricant, Michael

Leslie, Christopher

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Levitt, Torn

Flight, Howard

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Flynn, Paul

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Follett, Barbara

Linton, Martin

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lock, David

Galloway, George

Loughton, Tim

Gapes, Mike

Love, Andrew

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Luff, Peter

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Gerrard, Neil

McCabe, Steve

Gibson, Dr Ian

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gill, Christopher

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Golding, Mrs Llin

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Macdonald, Calum

Gray, James

McDonnell, John

Grieve, Dominic

McFall, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McIsaac, Shona

Grocott, Bruce

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Grogan, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hain, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McNulty, Tony

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

MacShane, Denis

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hammond, Philip

McWalter, Tony

Hanson, David

McWilliam, John

Hayes, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heald, Oliver

Mallaber, Judy

Healey, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Maxton, John

Hendrick, Mark

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Heppell, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hesford, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Moffatt, Laura

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hood, Jimmy

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hope, Phil

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

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

Howells, Dr Kim

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, John

Norris, Dan

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jenkins, Brian

Olner, Bill

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

O'Neill, Martin

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Paterson, Owen

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pike, Peter L

460

Plaskitt, James

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Pollard, Kerry

Stringer, Graham

Pond, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pope, Greg

Stunell, Andrew

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Purchase, Ken

Temple-Morris, Peter

Quinn, Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Rammell, Bill

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Rapson, Syd

Timms, Stephen

Raynsford, Nick

Tipping, Paddy

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Todd, Mark

Touhig, Don

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Trickett, Jon

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Truswell, Paul

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

burner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ruane, Chris

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Ruddock, Joan

Turner Neil (Wigan)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Tynan, Bill

Sawford, Pill

Vis, Dr Rudi

Shaw, Jonathan

Walley, Ms Joan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wareing, Robert N

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Watts, David

Skinner, Dennis

Webb, Steve

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

White, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Rt Hon Chns (Islington S)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

William Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Willis, Phil

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wills, Michael

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Winnick, David

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

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Soley, Clive

wood, Mike

Spellar, John

Woodward, Shaun

Squire, Ms Rachel

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Startey, Dr Phyllis

Wyatt, Derek

Steinberg, Gerry

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mr. David Jamieson.

NOES

Gill, Christopher

Tellers for the Noes:

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Mr. Eric Forth and

Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Bill reported, without amendment
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day], That the Bill be now read the Third
time.—[Mr. Touhig.]
The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 0.

Division No. 182]

[11.25 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bailey, Adrian

Ainger, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Amess, David

Barron, Kevin

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Battle, John

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Bayley, Hugh

Atherton, Ms Candy

Beard, Nigel

Atkins, Charlotte

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

461

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Follett, Barbara

Bermingham, Gerald

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Best, Harold

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Betts, Clive

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gapes, Mike

Blizzard, Bob

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

George, Pt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Bradshaw, Ben

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brazier, Julian

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gray, James

Browne, Desmond

Grieve, Dominic

Browning, Mrs Angela

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Buck, Ms Karen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burden, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Burgon, Colin

Grocott, Bruce

Butterfill, John

Grogan, John

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Hain, Peter

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Hammond, Philip

Hanson, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Heald, Oliver

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Healey, John

Casale, Roger

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Caton, Martin

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cawsey, Ian

Hendrick, Mark

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Chaytor, David

Heppell, John

Clapham, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Penttands)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hope, Phil

Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Clelland, David

Howells, Dr Kim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hoyle, Lindsay

Clwyd, Ann

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Coaker, Vernon

Hutton, John

Coleman, Iain

Iddon, Or Brian

Colman, Tony

Illsley, Eric

Corbett, Robin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Corston, Jean

Jenkins, Brian

Cousins, Jim

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cran, James

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cranston, Ross

Crausby, David

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Davidson, Ian

Joyce, Eric

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

Keeble, Ms Sally

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dawson, Hilton

Khabra, Piara S

Day, Stephen

Kidney, David

Denham, Rt Hon John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dismore, Andrew

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dobbin, Jim

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Donohoe, Brian H

Laxton, Bob

Doran, Frank

Levitt, Torn

Dowd, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Linton, Martin

Efford, Clive

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fabricant, Michael

Llwyd, Elfyn

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Loughton, Tim

Flight, Howard

Love, Andrew

Flynn, Paul

Luff, Peter

462

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCabe, Steve

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Sarwar, Mohammad

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Sawford, Phil

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Macdonald, Calum

Skinner, Dennis

McDonnell, John

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McFall, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

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

McLoughlin, Patrick

Soley, Clive

McNulty, Tony

Squire, Ms Rachel

MacShane, Denis

Steinberg, Gerry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

McWalter, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mallaber, Judy

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stringer, Graham

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Stunell, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Moffatt Laura

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morley, Elliot

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mullin, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Tipping, Paddy

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Todd, Mark

Norris, Dan

Touhig, Don

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Trickett, Jon

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Truswell, Paul

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg Derek (Halton)

Paterson, Owen

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pearson, Ian

Tynan, Bill

Perham, Ms Linda

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pickthall, Colin

Walley, Ms Joan

Pike, Peter L

Wareing, Robert N

Plaskitt, James

Watts, David

Pond, Chris

Webb, steve

Pope, Greg

white Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Prosser, Gwyn

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Purchase, Ken

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Quinn, Lawrie

Willis, Phil

Rammell, Bill

Wills, Michael

Rapson, Syd

Winnick, David

Raynsford, Nick

Wood, Mike

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Woodward, Shaun

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. David Jamieson and

Ruane, Chris

Mr. Kevin Hughes.

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Eric Forth and

Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

  Safe Pavements
  11.35 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the National Federation for the Blind. It has been organised by a resident of Southend, West, Mrs. Jill Allan-King, and has been signed by blind and partially sighted people from all over the United Kingdom who expressed concern at the unfortunate increasing tendency of cyclists to cycle on the pavement. The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give priority to the enforcement of existing legislation to ensure that pavements, footpaths, promenades and parks are safe for all pedestrians to safely walk on and so prevent the increasing numbers of accidents; and to bring forward proposals for legislation to require cycles & wheelchairs to be fitted with bells or other warning devices.
  And the petitioners remain. etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Hastings Multi-Modal Study
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
11.36 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on an issue that was central to my election four years ago in 1997. I said at that time, and I have my election address to prove it, that I would work relentlessly until the Government acknowledged the special needs of Hastings, particularly the need for a transport infrastructure to support social and economic regeneration.
For us, joined-up government means that Hastings needs to be joined up physically to the prosperity of the south-east and beyond. I say "us" because I am lifelong resident of Hastings. Indeed, I can claim a really boring statistic in support of that, as I have never left the town for more than two weeks in my whole life. I know that that will not impress most people, although I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be impressed by my knowledge of the needs of my constituency.
Everyone has heard of Hastings—1066 and all that. Its historic pedigree is first-class. Indeed, until the 1930s it was a thriving seaside resort, the fourth most popular in Britain. Its underground car parks and covered promenades were slate-of-the-art developments. Regular train services brought thousands of holidaymakers to our town and prosperity to our local economy. After the war, all that changed. Years of underinvestment meant that the town was impoverished by the 1960s. The local Tory council's manifesto was:
"Not a penny on the rates".
Neither Labour nor Tory Governments came to our aid. Most people thought that it was a safe parliamentary seat for the Tories, so Tory Governments did not bother because they thought that they could not lose and, sadly, Labour Governments did not bother because they thought that they could not win.
That was the environment in which I grew up, went to work and entered local politics. It is true that, from time to time, Governments suggested improvements to the A21. About 30 years ago, the Tonbridge and Pembury bypasses were built, but south of Tonbridge the A21 became a snail trail. Without a transport infrastructure, even more businesses moved out of Hastings, so our economic future looked increasingly bleak.
To abridge the history lesson. 1997 arrived, and with it new hope and new ambitions. With the return of a Labour Government, a Labour Member of Parliament for the first time and a Labour council for the first time, hopes were high.
The campaign for regeneration, to which John Cosson of the 1066 Enterprise and Christine Goldschmidt of the Hastings Trust were committed, gained pace. Single regeneration budget fund moneys came into the town, and the Labour Government made massive investment in social regeneration through sure start, the education action zone and, more recently, neighbourhood renewal schemes. Last year, the European Commission agreed to objective 2 status. Such aid was needed because the local economy was in tatters, with unemployment rates higher than in the former coalfields of the north, and social deprivation left Hastings 28th in the deprivation index.

465
Policies such as the minimum wage and the working families tax credit have brought hope to a town that still has more workers earning less than £250 a week than anywhere else in Britain. The minimum income guarantee, which has helped about 3,000 of our pensioners, and the winter fuel payments have alleviated much pensioner poverty, but although things are better, we remain the 28th most deprived town in Britain. Although the unemployment rate has virtually halved and youth unemployment is down by 85 per cent., we remain the unemployment blackspot of the south-east.
What will bring about the sea change? What will bring jobs and prosperity, and improve our local environment? What will restore our fortunes to pre-war days? To my mind, and in the opinion of 80 per cent. of my constituents, according to a local poll the solution is the creation of integrated transport access to Hastings, which will improve our economic fortunes and relieve our urban environment.
I support the Government's transport policies. It must be right that we should look first to public transport before private. It must be right that we look to rail, rather than road. For that reason, I have supported the Government's initiative in seeking a multi-modal solution from among the options for access to Hastings.
Before the study was commissioned, there were putative plans for improvements to the A21 and for a bypass around Hastings. That was a road-based solution to access, which, alone, would have been a lost opportunity. The multi-modal study therefore has as its objective to improve access to Hastings and find solutions to regeneration and land use planning pressures, and to see whether options other than roads could achieve those objectives.
The A21 improvement is the most important aspect of the road links between the M25 and the industrial estates in Hastings: it is not just business opportunity that is lost by the A21 track that masquerades as a trunk road, but many lives as well. The appalling carnage on the A21 and the resultant financial costs would justify the improvements that we seek.
The environmentally contentious bypass is of equal importance. I wish that it was unnecessary. The question that the study was intended to address was whether a non-road solution would achieve the objective. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the access study that was presented to my right hon. Friend's Department at the end of February, economic regeneration of the town is not possible without building the roads and the bypass.
Public transport elements of the package are of immense importance, as the rail links are as archaic as the roads. The Charing Cross line on which I travel most days takes one hour and 45 minutes to cover the 60 miles from Hastings to London in 40-year-old trains. The link to Europe through Ashford is served by a single track, non-electrified line on which the trains are even older.
The Government were right to commission the multi-modal study, but now that the result is known the time has come for decision. Although parts of the study were somewhat woolly, it made clear recommendations: first, the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford rail line, with new stock providing a direct link to the Euro service and an alternative route to London; secondly, new in-town stations and a Bexhill-Ore metro across the town, using the existing rail structure to provide for greater local
466
transport usage; and, thirdly, improvement to the Hastings to London Charing Cross line, including, presumably, new stock.
All that is fine and dandy, and the sooner decisions are made and implemented, the better, but the report makes it clear that public transport improvements alone will not solve the fundamental economic weakness of the area. There must also be, according to the report, improvements to the A21 and the construction of the Hastings bypass. The A21 is perhaps one of the worst roads in Britain. It is said that King Harold was so delayed in coming down the A21 to meet William the Conqueror that William claimed victory when Harold failed to show.
I know that the bypass in particular is environmentally sensitive. I do not rubbish the ideas of the environmental groups that oppose the bypass; I simply think that they are wrong. Their objectives are laudable, but their approach is too narrow. The roads are essential; without them, we cannot secure economic gains or relieve the urban environment.
I shall briefly explain those two objectives. Hastings has little employment land available within the borough. Likewise, housing land, as required by my right hon. Friend's Department in Hastings and Rother, is difficult to identify. However, at Woosnam farm in north Bexhill, which would be opened up only by the building of the bypass, the opportunity exists to create some 3,800 jobs and meet Rother's house building obligation, all within a four or five-mile radius of the unemployed of Hastings.
As far as I am aware, the A259 is the only main trunk road in Britain that transverses the seafront of a major town. It blights the lives of 10,000 of my local constituents and shakes apart some six conservation areas. There is, therefore, a trade off between the rural environment and the urban environment. For my part, I consider both to be equally important. To some extent, I think that the urban environment should have priority when the lives and health of so many of my constituents are so badly blighted by the current pollution and traffic jams that they must endure. In many ways, it should be said that people are more important than plants.
Let me tell the House about the lady whom I met in hospital last Christmas. She was suffering from asthma, and from behind her oxygen mask, she said, "Please, Mr. Foster, get that traffic off the Bexhill road." It was there that she lived. She and many of her neighbours are suffering a higher incidence of asthma that cannot be explained other than by traffic pollution.
Of course, the Government are trying to limit pollution from motor vehicles and are giving incentives. That is to be commended, but in order to make changes of significance here and now, the environmentally conscious Labour council in Hastings needs space to create traffic management measures to reduce traffic flow on the A259. It cannot do so without an alternative route, and no such route exists without the bypass. In Hastings, the bus companies will not even run extra buses on the A259 Bexhill road, because congestion is such that they cannot guarantee a timetable.
I know that the opponents of road building claim that the package will not mean extra jobs, because the new homes that the scheme envisages will create additional demand for jobs. That argument is invalid, because as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is requiring additional housing to be built in any

467
event, it follows that any additional need for jobs will arise whether or not the bypass is built. Without the bypass, however, there is no opportunity to provide the jobs that would be demanded.
I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister that, although a vocal minority, which comes mostly from outside the area, is opposed to the bypass scheme, this is not another Newbury. It is not a precedent or the start of a south-coast motorway. All that we ask for is a modest single-track relief road around the north of Hastings and Bexhill. In Newbury, the town was divided. In Hastings, it is united. There is all-party support. East Sussex county council and Hastings borough council are 100 per cent. behind the total package. The South East England regional assembly—the very body that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up to advise on these matters—voted by 100 votes to eight to recommend that the integrated package be approved. If local democracy means anything, that must be taken into account. In Hastings, regeneration is vital. My constituents do not want handouts for ever more. They want a hand up, which is what the package will provide. It means prioritising rail and public transport, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister has accepted elsewhere, it also means that roads may form part of a solution.
So, what I ask my right hon. Friend tonight is this: first, will either he or one of his ministerial colleagues visit my constituency to see the problem for themselves? I know that such a visit will graphically express the need for a positive decision, more than any oral submission could ever do. I have never understood the logic—or, for that matter, the legal authority—of the advice that Ministers have received to avoid such a visit. It may have been given because a visit would take too long, and I can understand that. I ask, therefore, that he and his colleagues think again.
Secondly, my constituents need an early answer. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend's ministerial colleagues in the Department have had the report only since the end of February, but it was accompanied by overwhelming advice from SEERA and other authorities, so surely the decision cannot be that difficult. I would welcome an indication from him on when a decision will be made.
Thirdly, if the decision on the bypass is so sensitive that, despite the clear unequivocal advice of all those who have been asked to comment, it is still to be further reviewed, cannot the balance of the package, including the A21 improvements, be approved, as has occurred elsewhere? I understand my right hon. Friend's dilemma, although I do not appreciate it, but I am a pragmatist, so I would welcome an immediate decision on the parts of the package that are not hotly in dispute.
Fourthly, I would welcome assurance from my right hon. Friend that the position remains that which was set out in a letter that I received from Lord Whitty on 28 March. The letter said that the decisions made on that day in respect of other schemes had no impact on the outcome of the Hastings study, as some believed. In particular, I was informed that
"no decision whatsoever has yet been made".
468
Finally, although an ultimate "yes" to the integrated package is expected, it would be helpful to those who want to invest in our town, but who are awaiting a decision, to know the timetable within which a decision will be made.
11.49 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) for raising this extremely important topic and for his lucid, cogent presentation of his case. It was interesting to learn of his lifelong commitment to his town and to hear at first hand the impact that congestion is having on the economic and environmental well-being of Hastings and the surrounding areas. He set out the economic and social case for transport improvements very clearly. He treated us to fascinating speculation about how the course of British history might have been altered if some of the improvements that he seeks had been in place some 935 years ago.
The Government recognise that both quality of life and a prosperous economy depend on transport. Motor vehicles have revolutionised the way we live, bringing greater flexibility and widening horizons, but the way we use our vehicles has a price for the economy, for our health and for the environment. Integrated transport is designed to extend choice and to provide a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair. It will provide more choice, better public transport, less pollution and better protection for the environment.
The environment-transport interface, which is important throughout the country, is especially prominent in the south-east, where population pressure is strong, car ownership and usage levels are high and one third of the land is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Good communications are central to the economy and our quality of life. These are complex issues, and there is no single panacea.
It may be helpful if I first set the multi-modal study in its wider policy context. The Government's 1998 roads review, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", a daughter document to the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", set out for the first time our view of the role of trunk roads within a fully integrated transport policy. It reviewed the long wish-list of trunk road schemes that the Government inherited against our key criteria for transport: accessibility, safety, economy, environmental impact and integration.
As a result of the review, we introduced a well-focused, targeted programme of improvements, or TPI, to the trunk road and motorway network. The TPI originally included 37 schemes that met the criteria that I have set out, and following further announcements since 1998, it now includes 49 schemes, all of which we are committed to delivering.
However, the roads review also recognised that there were many serious and urgent problems on our trunk road network which were not addressed by that programme of improvements. Many of those problems were particularly complex and could be addressed only by looking across the piece at all transport issues. We therefore commissioned a series of major transport studies to consider those issues in depth.
The programme of studies, finalised in March 1999, included the "Access to Hastings" multi-modal study. We recognised that as one of the most urgent cases and put it

469
into our first tranche of studies. The aim of the multi-modal studies is to investigate problems in all transport modes and to seek balanced solutions that contribute to our integrated transport policy by protecting the environment and supporting sustainable economic growth.
The primary aim of the "Access to Hastings" study was to consider how transport could contribute to regenerating the economy of the area in and around Hastings and Bexhill, while minimising the impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. In particular, the study was asked to consider the role of four existing trunk road schemes in providing a solution: the A21 Tonbridge-Pembury bypass, the A259 Bexhill-Hastings western bypass, the A259 Hastings eastern bypass and the A259 Pevensey-Bexhill improvement. As my hon. Friend said, the multi-modal study also covered rail links to London, Ashford and the channel tunnel.
The scope and content for the A259 schemes within the study was set out in the Secretary of State's interim decision letter of July 1998. That set out his "minded to" decision to make the orders for the A259 Hastings western bypass, subject to the scheme's regeneration impact, as determined by the "Access to Hastings" multi-modal study.
My hon. Friend has invited me or one of my colleagues to visit Hastings to see at first hand the case for the A259 bypass. I put it to him that that is not possible, because of Ministers' quasi-judicial role in this process. As my hon. Friend expressed some uncertainty, it may be helpful if I put on record the nature of that quasi-judicial role.
Draft statutory orders are published under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. An environmental impact assessment is published alongside the draft orders. When made, those orders give the Secretary of State the statutory authority to carry out a road improvement scheme. If there are any unresolved statutory objectors to the published orders, a local inquiry is held. The inquiry, like the one held into the Hastings schemes, is conducted by an independent inspector.
After considering the inspector's report of the inquiry and his recommendation, the Secretary of State issues his decision on the orders. If the decision is that the scheme should proceed, the orders are made taking into account any modifications recommended by the inspector that the Secretary of State has accepted.
If a proposed modification makes a substantial change to the published orders, the views of interested parties affected by those modifications must be taken into account. Circumstances can arise that require supplementary draft orders to be published which would be subject to the same procedure as the main orders, and an inquiry would be held if necessary.
The Secretary of State acts in a quasi-judicial role in taking decisions on orders authorising trunk road schemes that have been to local inquiry. The guiding principles for taking such statutory decisions are that the Secretary of State must be evenhanded in dealing with all interested parties, must follow the procedure rules scrupulously and must have regard to the rules of fairness and natural justice as developed by the courts.
Mr. Foster: I understand my right hon. Friend's point about the statutory obligations, but do those obligations
470
prevent the visit from taking place, provided that the Secretary of State is not subject to canvassing or lobbying by any group? Perhaps he could see both groups at the same time. Is there anything in the provisions that says he cannot attend an area over which he is making a decision?
Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult for the Secretary of State or a Minister to visit an area and see all the factors that may be considered relevant by all the people who may have an objection, and to make himself available to all the parties who have an objection. In such complex matters, there may be modifications that could lead to further objections. It would put the Secretary of State in an almost impossible position to make a visit and to maintain the principle of evenhandedness, which is fundamental to the performance of the quasi-judicial role. That is why the Secretary of State, by custom, does not visit an area that is subject to a major inquiry of this nature.
I speak with some authority on this subject as the Minister responsible for planning procedures with an analogous quasi-judicial role. Planning Ministers must be extremely careful about accepting invitations to visit sites where planning applications may be considered by the Secretary of State in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend understands and accepts that there is not a reluctance to see the circumstances of an area. I visited his area some time ago at his invitation, when I had no involvement in this process.
I reassure my hon. Friend that we recognise the urgent need to encourage a social and economic renaissance in Hastings. As he emphasised, the index of local deprivation recognises Hastings as one of the most deprived areas in the south-east. As such it receives significant regeneration funding: around £35 million is already committed to the area in the period to 2007, mainly under the single regeneration budget, but also from objective 2 funds and through the neighbourhood renewal programme.
We recognise that if we are to maximise the investment, we must get the provision of transport infrastructure and services right. However, the relationship between economic regeneration and transport improvements is extremely complex. The right transport investments can open up areas to new markets, opportunities and investors; but get it wrong, and new transport schemes could drain further an already depressed area. That difficult issue was central to the Hastings study.
As I have said, the issues are complex. It may be helpful if I say a little more about the process involved in the study. A consortium led by Steer Davies Gleave was appointed, following competitive tender, in November 1999. This was the first study to get under way. The Government office of the south-east led and financed it, but we thought it essential to involve all other key interests on an equal basis. Thus, as with all the multi-modal studies, we established a steering group that was responsible for the management and direction of the study. Membership was wide, incorporating all district and county councils directly involved in the study's coverage, as well as the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency, the regional development agency, and other business and local environmental groups.
The study went through a well-structured process. It analysed in depth the economic transport and planning issues in the study area; the consultants identified a range

471
of possible measures to address the problems, and assembled them into a number of strategies. The possible impacts of the packages were then appraised in detail, to obtain a broad picture of the costs and benefits of the different options. The focus of the work concentrated on the economic and environmental impacts. The consultants broke new ground in their analysis of the potential impact of transport measures on a local economy, and provided a comprehensive analysis of the existing economies of Bexhill and Hastings.
Fundamental to the process was a comprehensive consultation exercise. Emphasis was placed on giving people and interested organisations opportunities to participate in problem identification, strategy formulation and the derivation of solutions. It was intended that inviting greater involvement, including newsletters and telephone interviews, would make the solutions more appropriate, and—importantly—more fully understood by a broad spectrum of the community.
The consultants' final report was agreed by all members of the steering group at the end of November 2000. The report provided an analysis of current and future transport problems in the study area, identified solutions based on transport, economic and environmental data and the extensive consultation process, and recommended solutions in the form of a preferred strategy.
The preferred strategy identified by the consultants is in four parts, to which my hon. Friend referred. The first concerns the public transport elements. The consultants recommended the provision of a Bexhill-to-Ore metro service and a new railway station at Glyne Gap, the electrification of and infrastructure improvements to the Ashford-to-Hastings line, an enhanced local rail service between Wadhurst and Tonbridge, strengthened quality bus partnerships, and other supporting measures.
Secondly, the consultants made firm recommendations on highway improvements. They recommended that an online widening of the A21 from Tonbridge to Pembury to "dual two" standard be taken forward to statutory processes; they also recommended that the A259 Pevensey-to-Bexhill dual carriageway improvement should not proceed.
Thirdly, the consultants concluded that more work should be undertaken to investigate opportunities for further improvement in a multi-modal context along the A21 corridor, particularly in the light of sensitivities surrounding the area of outstanding natural beauty through which the route passes.
Fourthly, the consultants considered the case for the A259 Bexhill and Hastings western bypass and A259 eastern bypass schemes. They analysed the potential
472
impacts of the bypasses. In terms of regeneration, they concluded that the bypasses could provide between 2,500 and 3,000 additional jobs; however, they also felt that the balance of argument was such that they could not make a recommendation on whether the bypasses should proceed. While they might improve the potential for regeneration, that needed to be balanced against the Government's strong presumption against schemes that would significantly affect environmentally sensitive areas, or important species, habitats or landscapes.
In the case of the Hastings study, the western bypass would need to proceed on a viaduct across the Combe Haven site of special scientific interest; and a modified junction, at the western end of the bypass at the junction with the existing A259, is within the Pevensey levels SSSI, which is also listed as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention on wetlands.
The eastern bypass runs through the sensitive Brede valley area within the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty. The consultants thus concluded that decision makers should consider the output of the study on the basis of two strategies, one with and one without the proposed bypasses. The consultants estimated that the strategy without the bypasses would cost £90.3 million at 1999 prices, and that, with the bypasses, the cost would be £225.8 million.
The steering group commended the consultants' report to the regional assembly, suggesting consideration in the context of wider regional objectives. A covering letter reflecting the considerations of the steering group accompanied the submission to the regional assembly. The letter reflects the fact that the group reached consensus on many issues and, indeed, many of the recommendations. There was not a consensus view in the steering group, however, with regard to the bypass schemes. A majority considered the case was sufficiently strong to proceed, although the case was not overwhelming.
As my hon. Friend said, the regional assembly considered the final report at its plenary session on 14 February and submitted its recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 21 February. The assembly reported that the transport strategy on the bypasses would, in its view, give the best chance for the effective renaissance and regeneration of the area. It qualified its support by considering that the transport package should be viewed as part of a wider strategy for regeneration.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes past Twelve midnight.

Deferred Divisions

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 9.

  Division No. 174]

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Ashton, Joe

  Colman, Tony

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corston, Jean

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cotter, Brian

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Battle, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Bayley, Hugh

  Crausby, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Beggs, Roy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Harold

  Dawson, Hilton

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brake, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Feam, Ronnie

  Burnett, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caplin, Ivor

  Galloway, George

  Casale, Roger

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  474

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grogan, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hain, Peter

  McFall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hancock, Mike

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

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

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keetch, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

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

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Livsey, Richard

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruane, Chris

  475

  Ruddock, Joan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Timms, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Sawford, Phil

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Truswell, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tynan, Bill

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

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, John

  Watts, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Webb, Steve

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Willis, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wills, Michael

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  NOES

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McCrea, Dr William

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10802/00, draft directives on waste electrical and electronic equipment and on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment; notes the Government's current negotiating line on the Document; and supports the Government's actions.
  The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 126.

  Division No. 175]

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Barron, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Ashton, Joe

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Austin, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Bailey, Adrian

  Benton, Joe

  Ballard, Jackie

  Best, Harold

  476

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blackman, Liz

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flint, Caroline

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Burstow, Paul

  Gardiner, Barry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepbum, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hutton, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Joyce, Eric

  Efford, Clive

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  477

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keetch, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

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

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Livsey, Richard

  Ross, Erne (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sanders, Adrian

  McFall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McGrady, Eddie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Maxton, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stringer, Graham

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

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Oaten, Mark

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Todd, Mark

  Olner, Bill

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  478

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyler, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Tynan, Bill

  Winnick, David

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Woodward, Shaun

  Watts, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Webb, Steve

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wicks, Malcolm

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Arness, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Loughton, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Bercow, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Blunt, Crispin

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Body, Sir Richard

  McCrea, Dr William

  Boswell, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Madel, Sir David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Burns, Simon

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Butterfill, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Norman, Archie

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Pace, James

  Collins, Tim

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Cran, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Prior, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Evans, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Garnier, Edward

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gibb, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heald, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Walter, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  479

  Whittingdale, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 435, Noes 38.

  Division No. 176]

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Amess, David

  Casale, Roger

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clappison, James

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beggs, Roy

  Coleman, Iain

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Collins, Tim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Colman, Tony

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Best, Harold

  Corston, Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Cox, Tom

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cran, James

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brady, Graham

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dismore, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burns, Simon

  Doran, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dowd, Jim

  Butterfill, John

  Drew, David

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  480

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Edwards, Huw

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Efford, Clive

  Hutton, John

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Illsley, Eric

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Fallon, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jamieson, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Flight, Howard

  Flint, Caroline

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Follett, Barbara

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Joyce, Eric

  Foulkes, George

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Gale, Roger

  Kemp, Fraser

  Galloway, George

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Key, Robert

  Garnier, Edward

  Khabra, Piara S

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kidney, David

  Gibb, Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Goggins, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lammy, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lansley, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Laxton, Bob

  Green, Damian

  Leigh, Edward

  Greenway, John

  Lepper, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Leslie, Christopher

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Levitt, Tom

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Grogan, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Linton, Martin

  Hain, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Loughton, Tim

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Love, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Luff, Peter

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Hawkins, Nick

  McCrea, Dr William

  Hayes, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heald, Oliver

  Macdonald, Calum

  Healey, John

  McFall, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  McGrady, Eddie

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Hendrick, Mark

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Heppell, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hesford, Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hood, Jimmy

  McNulty, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Horam, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Madel, Sir David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  481

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Martlew, Eric

  Randall, John

  Mates, Michael

  Rapson, Syd

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Maxton, John

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Robathan, Andrew

  Merron, Gillian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Miller, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ruffley, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mudie, George

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Sawford, Phil

  Norman, Archie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Norris, Dan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Shepherd, Richard

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Olner, Bill

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Page, Richard

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Paice, James

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Paterson, Owen

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Pearson, Ian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Soames, Nicholas

  Pickles, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spellar, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Pope, Greg

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Pound, Stephen

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stevenson, George

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stewart, Cavid (Inverness E)

  Prior, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  482

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Tynan, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Viggers, Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Syms, Robert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Watts, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Willetts, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thompson, William

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Todd, Mark

  Wills, Michael

  Touhig, Don

  Winnick, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wood, Mike

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Truswell, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Yeo, Tim

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  NOES

  Ballard, Jackie

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Keetch, Paul

  Brake, Tom

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

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Burnett, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Oaten, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  Rendell, David

  Davey Edward (Kingston)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

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

  George Andrew (St Ives)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hancock, Mike

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harvey, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Webb, Steve

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Willis, Phil

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Green Belt
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a subject of great interest to my constituents, and, in particular, the Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Society, which I recently met at the home of its chairman, Mrs. Avril Chick. At that well-attended meeting, the members told me of their concern that the future of the green belt should be debated in Parliament. I am now honouring what I said on that occasion. It is of interest to many other of my constituents and to hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who is unable to attend today owing to a personal engagement. He shares similar concerns about the future of the green belt in his constituency, which adjoins the southern end of my constituency.
I hope that this will prove to be a timely debate. Last month the Government finally confirmed regional planning guidance 9—the regional planning guidance for the south-east—following consultation. That is an important document providing the regional framework for the preparation of local authority development plans up to 2016. RPG9 has many implications for the future of the green belt. In particular, it contains the Government's targets for housing developments in the south-east outside London.
In March last year, the Government gave their response to the level of house building suggested by Serplan and the Crowe report, and chose a level of 43,000 new houses a year, a figure in between the two suggested. In its final form, the regional planning guidance suggests that provision for housing in the south-east should be for 39,000 houses each year up to 2006. Several points should be made about that. First, the Government's figure is substantially higher than that suggested by Serplan—33,000 houses. Secondly, the figure is for five years only. The planning guidance says that the figure is subject to review within five years, in the light of monitoring, the findings of urban capacity studies and studies of potential growth areas. However, RPG9 gives a clear steer in favour of a higher annual total after 2006. Paragraph 8.6 of RPG9 states:
"A higher rate of provision than 39,000 dwellings per annum is likely to be necessary to meet the long term needs in the rest of the South East."
Thirdly, the share of housing allocated to Hertfordshire, in the final version of RPG9, is almost the same as was originally envisaged: 3,280 houses each year, as opposed to 3,290 under the original plans. I am not sure what happened to the other 10 houses, but the loss of them will be no consolation to those who are concerned about the house-building target for the county. The 3,280 figure is substantially higher than the
64WH
number of houses Serplan suggested for Hertfordshire each year, which was in the region of 2,500. That means almost 50,000 additional houses will be built in Hertfordshire by 2016. That assumes that the annual rate continues at 39,000 each year in the south-east, but there is a clear steer in favour of a higher figure in RPG9. There will be at least 50,000 new houses in Hertfordshire, and probably more.
To put that in context, according to the House of Commons Library 50,000 new houses in Hertfordshire is roughly equivalent to the number of dwellings that can be found in the existing borough of Dacorum. To put it another way, a settlement the size of Stevenage and Hitchin will be located within the present boundaries of Hertfordshire by 2016. Those who know Stevenage and Hitchin will also know that that will be a substantial settlement.
Where will additional housing be located in Hertfordshire? The Government tell us that they want as much housing as possible on brownfield developments, and it is fair to say that RPG9 has worthy intentions in that regard. It discusses
"new dwelling provision being accommodated in urban areas in ways which enhance the quality of urban living. This involves making better use of the existing housing stock, along with re-use of vacant and under-used buildings and sites."
Those are undoubtedly worthy intentions, but they may be easier to implement in older urban industrial areas. How easily can they be implemented in a county such as Hertfordshire? Hertfordshire does not contain many brownfield sites associated with older industrial areas. It does contain several new towns, and much of the housing stock throughout the county is relatively new.
In its response to the Government's consultation on the proposed housing distribution, Hertfordshire county council, which should be in a position to know, states that it
"disagrees strongly with the Government's assertion that it will be possible to achieve the proposed overall rate of provision of 39,000 dwellings per annum probably rising to 43,000 after 2006, without using more greenfield land than would have been taken by the level of development proposed by SERPLAN".
The council is especially alarmed by the damaging implications for further erosion of the green belt, and it urges the Government to reduce the annual average of additional dwelling provision to the figure put forward by Serplan. Hertfordshire county council is also sceptical whether the Government's policy will meet their target for the provision of affordable housing, although it makes it clear that it supports the aspiration of meeting local housing needs, which includes key workers. That is the response of Hertfordshire county council to the Government's housing targets.
Within Hertfordshire, individual boroughs such as Hertsmere are waiting to see how the housing target for Hertfordshire will be divided among local authorities. Given its proximity to London and Watford, Hertsmere has good reason to set particular store by the green belt, which is under constant pressure. Proposals to develop on the green belt are constantly put forward with apparently worthy justifications behind them. However, the problem is that if the planners accepted every justification for development on the green belt, there would soon be no green belt left.
One example of the pressures facing the green belt in Hertsmere involves a suggestion to develop a greenbelt site in Stephenson way in Bushey to provide a park-and-

65WH
ride car park to serve Watford. Park-and-ride schemes may be a good idea, but that would mean the loss of an important area of green belt in Hertsmere. It is an important open space, which is valued by local people, and an area of green belt that planners acknowledge prevents the coalescence of Watford and north Bushey, which enables Bushey to retain its distinctive identity. Such developments cannot be justified, and are at odds with the principles behind the green belt.
The problem with the Government's housing targets in RPG9 is that they will create pressure to build on the green belt in Hertsmere in the long term. The targets will also place pressure on the infrastructure, affecting schools, roads, drainage and so forth. Many of the more obvious brownfield sites in Hertsmere have already been used, or earmarked for development. For example, a former long-stay institution in Shenley has accommodated a substantial housing development. For how much longer will brownfield sites in urban areas be available for development in boroughs such as Hertsmere?
The greater the provision that Hertsmere is expected to make, the greater will be the pressure for development affecting the character of existing urban areas and for development into the green belt. In Hertsmere, one cannot compensate for the removal of one area from the green belt by adding another area to it, because nearly all the land that is not urban is already designated as green belt.
I am sceptical about the approach that says that the removal of part of the green belt can be compensated for by designating another greenfield site as green belt. That is similar to saying, on the conservation of species, that it would not matter if we lost the rhino, because we could put the giraffe and the elephant on the endangered species list. Once green belt is gone, it is gone for good. It is no consolation to my constituents whose green belt is threatened, to say that other places, in other boroughs or counties, will be designated as green belt in compensation. That is a recipe for constantly shifting the green belt outwards and taking more and more greenfield and greenbelt areas into urban development.
Hertfordshire county council is right to warn that the RPG9 targets will have long-term consequences for the green belt. In boroughs such as Hertsmere, development on the scale envisaged seriously threatens the concept of the green belt, and is not sustainable. The development that we are setting in train will occur at the expense of the environment that we should hand on to future generations. It will be bad for their quality of life that open spaces will disappear and communities merge into one another. It will be bad for the environment that habitat, and plant and animal species, will be placed under pressure and then lost.
The Government have turned their hand to that cause in the RPG9 targets for housing development. We should continue debating the matter, and have a long hard look at the point that development has reached in the south-east. We need to re-think ploughing on with a course of action that will inevitably mean that huge swathes of the south-east disappear under concrete—including swathes of the green belt in my Hertsmere constituency.
9.43 am
Mr. Bruce George: I appreciate the initiative of the lion. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). The green belt is obviously important in and around Hertsmere. It is also important in and around Walsall, which is part of the west midlands megalopolis, where the dividing lines between Birmingham, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley are hard to make out. The green belt was established to stop the northern movement of Birmingham into other parts of the west midlands and the black country. It is more than an aspiration. It is something that has to be preserved. The green belt in my area is sacrosanct.
Unfortunately, not everybody holds that concept dear. Some planners—although not many—and some building companies, who are competent and reputable, want to expand the benefits of housing to areas that should not contain housing. I do not expect the Minister to comment on the general principles that I shall outline. I am fairly sure that in the next six months or so an enormous document will land on the Secretary of State's doorstep, in which an application will be "called in". Indeed, the matter can be resolved only at that level.
My great concern is that protections available to the green belt might be violated. I accept that we must be pragmatic and that the green belt has expanded, but there are people at the heels of Ministers and local authorities who are using the mass of documentation associated with regional and planning guidance to justify encroachment. I am particularly worried about the greenbelt area between Birmingham and Walsall, which is protected by the Walsall urban development plan. It is in the Beacon regional park, a grade 2 park of special historical interest. There are two sites of importance for nature conservation and three areas of ancient woodland—part of the West Mercia forest. It is also part of the Great Barr hall conservation area. One would have expected protections for Great Barr hall, which is a grade 2 listed building, and the St. Margaret's hospital site, to be more than sufficient to allow people such as me to rest assured that Bovis will be unable to plant 600 houses any where near that site. However, I am anxious that well-paid and competent lawyers and barristers will be able to manipulate complicated documentation and thereby pose a threat.
It is important to point out that the arguments for not building on the green belt are very strong. The planning process is just beginning and the Aldridge, South area planning committee is meeting in April to discuss the preliminary investigation. The process will grind on through the summer, and it would be impertinent to jump in at this stage. The local authority, the public and relevant organisations should have ample opportunity to express their views before the Secretary of State responds to any requests. We are talking about a well-protected area, and any breach of those protections would have considerable implications for other greenbelt areas. In that regard, the application has not only a local but a national connotation.
My motives have been questioned, but I should point out that my green credentials go back at least as far as 1966 and my MA dissertation, at Warwick university, on environmental pressure groups. Of course, one had to begin one's dissertation with a wonderful quotation from someone else, because rarely can one provide the

67WH
kind of quotation that should precede a dissertation. In "The Costs of Economic Growth", which was published in 1965, the economist E.J. Mishan said:
"The desire to create the Jerusalem of economic growth in England's green and pleasant land has so far resulted in a conspicuous lack of both greenness and pleasantness."
That quote is as relevant today as ever. Since the mid-1960s, there has been a greater awareness of the need to protect the environment, control urban sprawl and inject a degree of rationality into a hitherto fairly non-rational process. The green belt is pert of the process of halting this almost unstoppable juggernaut.
I am not some starry-eyed, paid up member of the environmental protest movement, eschewing all pragmatism or compromise, but I genuinely hope that the site will remain off bounds to developers such as Bovis. Half the site was bought by a Del Boy-type character a decade ago. He bought the land cheaply on borrowed money, obtained planning permission, sold it off, then hoped to retire on his ill-gotten gains. He was a pretty worthless character. I fear that other Del Boys are waiting in the wings—although not Bovis, which I should not want to castigate in that way.
Following on from what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said about regional planning guidance, the regional planning guidance for the west midlands region, RPG11, at paragraph 9.1, states:
"On the basis of the advice put to him and in the light of representations received, the Secretary of State proposes that the following additional dwellings, including replacements and conversions, should be constructed in each local authority area between April 1991 and March 2011."
The west midlands has been presented with 335,000 dwellings, of which Walsall, the borough that I represent, has been allocated 10,100. Up until April 2000, 5,563 of those 10,100 homes had been built, including conversions. In addition, 1,275 dwellings have already been given planning permission, and Walsall is well on target to meet the requirements by 2011 by using existing sites.
We have all read documents, including the Secretary of State's White Paper "Our towns and cities: the future: delivering an urban renaissance", which tell us how important it is to reclaim land and to use brownfield sites. In a town such as mine, we have ample brownfield sites that are desperately crying out for companies such as Bovis to come and develop them. We can meet the targets without raping the green belt. I shall not bore hon. Members with the other documents from the Library that I have looked at, which include planning guidance notes and documents on the countryside, environmental quality, social development, town and country planning, residential development and greenfield land. I have read many and will read many, many more. I hope that the Government will say that greenfield sites can be developed only in exceptional circumstances. I am pretty certain that such circumstances do not exist, and that we do not need these houses.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), anyone who drives through north Birmingham will see that, like my constituency, it is not quite a Norwich or a Norfolk, nor is it among the most beautiful areas in the world. However, when one leaves north Birmingham
68WH
one comes to a swathe of rural land, with a mediaeval-looking church with a beautiful graveyard, a golf course, a lake and a forest. It is greenbelt land of the highest order, and the thought of 600 homes being dumped there is truly appalling. No party has a monopoly of concern for the protection of the green belt: it is not a party political issue, and I would deplore any attempt to make it so. Everyone must recognise the importance of sustaining the green belt.
There are other ways of destroying the green belt apart from giving approval for building 600 houses. In my area—I suspect because of a shortage of planning staff—over the years there has been a creeping destruction of the green belt as farmers have extended buildings without seeking authorisation. I do not wish to dump further on the farming community, which has more than enough problems to be going on with, but if those people see that they can build extensions without being compelled to go through the planning process, and if no action is taken to remove the buildings that they put up, they can construct with impunity.
A further threat—again, I do not expect the Minister to comment—comes from Bass, which is a respectable brewery. It wants to develop a site with the delightful name of Fast Eddies, which has a Damon Runyon ring to it. The existing building is dreadful and whoever gave planning permission for it 30 years ago should be beaten because it was an appalling decision. Bass now wants to build seven houses. They have been tastefully designed and Bass, like Bovis, has put enormous effort into trying to meet the objections. My great concern is that to the south of the green belt is the Bovis threat, in the middle is the threat of creeping destruction of the green belt by unauthorised dwellings, and to the north is the threat of a housing development. If any or all of those are not checked by the planning process and, ultimately, the Secretary of State, I fear that whole concept of the green belt in that part of the midlands will be destroyed for ever because it could not be brought back into public use.
I appeal to hon. Members in the Chamber to proclaim their credentials in support of the green belt. We are not against housing and we all have constituents who want to move and who live in unsatisfactory housing. I do not want to stop the growth of home ownership. We all aspire to that and most of us here have met that aspiration. We should not deny that to others. However, the planning process, planning legislation and the green belt concept that was developed in the 1950s, based on ideas from the 1930s, have withstood the test of time and the predators who want to destroy it. I hope that the House will maintain a solid commitment to the green belt and that all hon. Members will continue to monitor developments and the gatekeepers of the green belt concept—the planning inspectors. The Secretary of State, his advisers and fellow Ministers must evaluate claims from pressure groups, local authorities and builders and make balanced decisions on the conflict of greenness and pleasantness against housing. Those decisions are often difficult and I hope that legislation will be strong enough and provide sufficient safeguards.
I am not arguing the details of the campaign that is unfolding in my constituency—others will do that more competently—but when the shouting has finished, the briefs have been read and the speeches have been made in this place, the final decision will rest with the Secretary of State.
9.58 am
Mr. John Horam: My constituency is on the edge of London, almost in Kent, and many of my constituents wish that it was in Kent. However, they live in the London borough of Bromley, which probably has more greenbelt land within its borders than any other London borough.
Mr. John Wilkinson: It does.
Mr. Horam: I am grateful for that confirmation.
The green belt is valued greatly by residents and by others who live in inner London. I want to raise a matter that has not been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) or the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and which is a specific threat to the green belt—airport development.
Most airports were developed during the first part of the previous century and, for obvious reasons, were sited on the outskirts of large centres of population. Most, including Manchester. Birmingham and certainly London, have been surrounded by a green belt as they have developed over the years. Airports are hugely intrusive on greenbelt sites with the noise of aircraft and their associated danger, buildings, roads and infrastructure. I might mention, in the context of the current environmental debate, that aviation fuel is untaxed; international bodies and Government might pay some attention to that.
We need airports, however, and we all take flights. Some of us may be hoping to take a flight out of this country over Easter, as the Prime Minister's decision to postpone the general election enables us to do. We know that airports are bound to develop as air travel develops, which it has done rapidly over the past few years. Therefore, any Government must encounter severe problems to balance the conflicting demands for more air travel with the need to protect the green belts that often surround airports.
I shall now turn to a problem that affects my area. Biggin Hill airport, famous as the airfield associated with the battle of Britain, is used for training purposes and private planes. I do not want to awaken too many bad memories for the Government, but I should say that Mr. Bernie Ecclestone has a large place for maintenance at that airport, and his grand prix drivers fly in and out from it, as do other private planes relating to his business. The airport is also used for servicing and maintenance.
The operators on the airfield want to develop Biggin Hill airport into a much larger operation, which would involve not only scheduled but charter flights and the full panoply of services, as is provided at airports such as Luton. Those proposals have struck horror into the residents of the surrounding area, and in small villages such as Downe, which is within 100 yd of the edge of the airfield. Downe was the home of Charles Darwin; the grounds of Downe house contain his famous walk where he pondered the origin of the species. One can imagine the symbolism of that walk, where he composed "The Origin of Species" in the 19th century, being thundered over by jumbo jets in the 21st century.
The Minister has been involved in the matter because the airport's operator sought permission under permitted development rights to build a large and
70WH
probably unsightly hangar in an unsuitable place. The council sought an Article Four direction from her, which she granted last December. I thank her and her Department for that decision, which indicated clearly that she gave priority to the green belt; she referred to that priority several times in her letters.
The owner is now putting forward a planning application in the normal way, so I hope that the council, whose resolve sometimes needs some stiffening on these matters, will ask for and impose an environmental impact assessment on that, as environmental considerations should certainly be taken into account in the green belt. The owner is pressing ahead with various schemes on many fronts, although I shall not detail them now.
The Government are conducting a large-scale study, the south-east and east of England regional air service study—SERAS—which will affect many Conservative Members. They have also put out for consultation a document on the future of civil aviation, on which consultation is taking place. Those studies have raised questions about what is going to happen about aviation in the south-east. Consultants are conducting a great deal of work on various possible locations. It is alarming that so many sites for both existing and new airports are being considered throughout the country.
I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) to reveal more information about those matters, but, owing to the problems of blight and so on and because of traditional ministerial practice, the Department is not yet prepared to reveal any information as to which locations are being considered. I understand that the situation is partly created by the problems of blight, but the issues that hang over the heads of those in many small and larger areas in and around London must be resolved soon.
The green belt was introduced for a purpose, and it has worked well. There is widespread support for it, and it is needed more than ever in the 21st century. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and her Department will give it the high priority that it has previously enjoyed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): I want all right hon. and hon. Members to be aware of the common practice that concluding speeches by the Government and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties start 30 minutes before the end of the debate. Therefore, the debate has only 25 minutes left to run, and I ask all contributors to bear that in mind.
10.5 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for introducing this timely debate. I also appreciated the speech of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). It is clear that he shares my party's understanding of the importance of the green belt in preventing the development of a megalopolis.
I will focus on the green belt's effect on London. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), contains a considerable

71WH
amount of green belt. The borough that covers my hon. Friend's constituency has 19,050 square acres of green belt, whereas Hillingdon, the borough that covers my constituency, has 12,925 square acres, and only two Greater London boroughs contain a larger area of green belt than that.
There are more than 4 million square acres of national green belt, of which only 1,270,850 square acres lie around and within Greater London, and 7 per cent. is concentrated in 18 London boroughs. I want the Government to recognise that the metropolitan green belt stretches across borough boundaries and lies on both sides of the Greater London boundary and the M25. I hope that a common approach to the preservation of the green belt will be adopted by county and district councils outside Greater London, and London boroughs and the Greater London Authority. I also seek the Minister's reassurance that the London Mayor's spatial development strategy will not be allowed adversely to impinge on the preservation of the green belt within Greater London.
The green belt in Greater London serves the particularly important function of ensuring that the city does not stretch, unchecked, out to he M25. There are places in outer London, such as the village of Harefield in my constituency, that are still partly rural. If more building and development were allowed within such greenbelt areas, it would have a disastrous effect on the quality of life in outer London.
Some projects are especially menacing: the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to one of them in the area that he represents. I wish to highlight Central railway's plan to run a freight line from Merseyside, through the midlands, around or through London, and on to the channel tunnel. In the previous Parliament, the project was defeated under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. The promoters of the project have held consultations with the local authorities that are situated along the proposed route, and those discussions have made them aware of the environmental importance of the green belt, and of sites of special scientific interest and nature reserves, many of which lie within the green belt. In my own constituency, Ruislip woods is a premier nature reserve in green belt in Greaser London, and in the Colne valley there are many sites of special scientific interest that are also green belt. As I understand it, Central railway intends to run the line through the Colne valley and then either along the Chiltern line track that passes green belt between Uxbridge and Ruislip in to central London or around the M25 to Croydon and down to the channel tunnel. Either way, the railway will go through green belt and have a devastating effect on the local environment.
It has been suggested that, because the result of the consultation has been so adverse and many local authorities are rightly sensitive about the dangers of such developments in their green belt areas, the Government might be induced to promote the Bill under the hybrid procedure. It would be an abuse if the Government used that procedure to push the Central railway project through Parliament. The Transport and Works Act procedure was evolved specifically to ensure that local sensitivities, such as the preservation of green belt, were taken into account in the planning procedure. If a hybrid Bill has Government support, the Government can mobilise their majority to push a pet
72WH
project through, regardless of environmental or other sensitivities. I urge the Government to come clean on the matter. There has already been blight as property values have understandably declined along the projected route of the railway line.
In conclusion, I seek clarification on a point that has been put to Her Majesty's Government on many occasions by the London Green Belt Council, of which I have the honour of being president. Many voluntary organisations within and outside London are members of the council, which has worked effectively on an entirely voluntary basis to preserve the green belt since the first plans were initiated in 1954, especially under the chairmanship of Mr. Ronald Smith, to whom I pay tribute. He recently left the post because of ill health, but he did the job admirably for more than 20 years.
The council's point is that the green belt is not a designation of countryside quality. Its importance is to prevent communities—villages and towns—becoming merged in an amorphous sprawl. It is not a question of preserving pretty countryside. If those two concepts become confused, there is a risk that the original planning purpose of green belt will be vitiated. I ask Her Majesty's Government for reassurance on that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made clear, RPG9 contains projections of additional housing that will have a grave impact on open space and green belt in the south-east. It speaks much about preserving beautiful countryside and SSIs and so forth, which is all to the good, but there must be space between towns and villages, otherwise they become conurbations, especially in the south-east, which is so overcrowded and congested. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and seek reassurance from the Minister on those points.
10.14 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this important debate, and on the highly effective way in which he represents the interests of his constituents. I am also pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), because he concluded on precisely the point at which I should like to begin.
As many hon. Members will know, the Cambridge green belt was one of the first to be established and was designed precisely for the purpose to which my hon. Friend referred—to try to maintain the setting of Cambridge. It is not a designation of the quality of land as such, but has the purpose of avoiding the urban sprawl in Cambridge that has occurred in many other settings during the past 50 years.
The Cambridge green belt is not intended to set the city in aspic, or to create a museum of the city. Cambridge's development over the past 50 years is the opposite of that. Regardless of the green belt, we are the fastest growing part of the country, with a world-class university, and we have made rapid developments in housing, technology and industry. However, will the green belt continue to be protected so that the city, with its continuing character, will still offer those who come to Cambridge to live or for business the quality environment that has previously been enjoyed? I regret that that is under threat, and that the Government have not helped.

73WH
We have heard about the issuing of regional planning guidance. RPG6, which relates to East Anglia, was finalised in November 2000. The Minister will recall from a debate in the House in June 2000—prior to the issue of that guidance—that I was critical of the Government's intention to set out a sequence of developments in the Cambridge sub-region, which is under unique pressure for additional development.
In that sequence of housing developments, the first priority is within the built-up area of Cambridge, but subsequent studies have shown that only a small proportion of additional housing could be built on sites in that area. The second priority for development is on the periphery of the built-up area of Cambridge, subject to the review of the green belt. That area, by definition, is greenbelt land. That would prioritise Cambridge greenbelt development ahead of development outside the green belt and in market towns.
The Government's guidance has opened the door to those who wish substantially to undermine the original purposes of the green belt. Since then, we have discovered that Cambridge city council, which is unfortunately led by the Liberal Democrats, is pursuing that strategy. The order of preference in the studies, which includes early greenbelt development, makes it possible that up to half of the additional sites for new housing in the Cambridge sub-region will be identified in the green belt. Therefore, some studies have identified that 11,000 of the 22,000 additional houses beyond those in the pipeline would be built on greenbelt sites.
It is obvious to my constituents, and to the House, that building a maximum of 11,000 new houses on the Cambridge green belt would undermine the green belt's purposes. Maps from the studies show that such a scale of development will substantially change southern and eastern access to Cambridge.
I do not argue that the green belt should remain the same for ever. I learned at the regional planning inquiry that, in this context, planning law says that permanent means 25 years. Nothing is permanent. Addenbrooke's hospital has proposed a small addition to its site, which would be on greenbelt land, and I do not object to that because it is a necessary step. However, to develop a large urban area in the green belt, to the extent suggested by some studies that are promoted by Cambridge city council, would undermine the green belt, and that would be a direct consequence of the regional planning guidance issued by the Government.
In relation to the decisions made on structure plans, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will, if they can, begin to modify the consequences of the regional planning guidance, if that leads to excessive development in the green belt. I hope that, as a result of this debate, Cambridge city council, and especially the Liberal Democrats on it, will abandon its plan to build over the Cambridge green belt, which would be detrimental to those who live in Cambridge and especially my constituents.
10.20 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: My constituency is blighted by a plan to build 10,000 houses on prime greenbelt land between Hitchin and Stevenage.
74WH
In a sense, every constituency with greenbelt land is blighted by that proposal, because it is the biggest ever proposal to build on the green belt.
As we know, planning is based on precedence, so the creation of such a precedent could threaten the integrity of green belts throughout the country. That proposal was such an important issue that it provoked a national row, which prompted the Deputy Prime Minister to come to Parliament to announce a change in his planning policies. We were told that the new policy would require counties and councils, when developing new structure plans, to establish all the brownfield sites first, before moving on to less brown or greenfield sites, and it was hoped that that would obviate the need to build on the green belt.
When the Deputy Prime Minister made that announcement, I welcomed it provisionally, but I said that the litmus test would be whether the new proposals were merely spin, or whether they would alter things on the ground—whether they would influence and impinge on the proposal to build 10,000 houses in the green belt between Hitchin and Stevenage.
Sadly, the Minister acknowledged, in subsequent correspondence, that the Government did not intend that the new planning policy guidance note 3 should apply to structure plans that were already in the pipeline. However, the consequence of the change had been seen on the ground—the Conservatives had regained control of North Hertfordshire district council and Hertfordshire county council, partly because of the reaction to the proposal among the electorate, who resented the way in which it had been rammed through by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on Hertfordshire county council. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was right to say that such matters should not be party political. Sadly, however, that was not the case in my area, where the proposal had been carried through for largely party political reasons by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, who saw advantage for themselves in building up Stevenage.
The consequence of the change in the composition of North Hertfordshire district council was that it took legal advice from a leading Queen's counsel on whether PPG3 should apply to structure plans that were in the process of being determined. He ruled that, despite the Government's intention, and with specific reference to the Minister's letter to me, the Government were misadvised and that PPG3 does apply to such structure plans, which must fulfil the requirements. The structure plan in question had not fulfilled those requirements, so there was a duty to reject it, which has been done. That has created an extraordinary situation. It has cast in doubt the whole planning process established by the Government, as well as what will happen in North Hertfordshire district council and Hertfordshire county council.
I call on the Minister to clarify the position by revising and reconsidering her advice. Will she accept that if the Government's policy is right for the future, it must be right for plans that are currently in the process of being implemented? If the policy can be put into effect, thereby preventing the blight on the green belt—not only in my constituency but, because of its precedential effect,

75WH
throughout the country—that must be in the interests of the country as well as my constituents. I call on the Minister to think again.
10.24 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the way in which he presented his case and on having the good fortune to secure this debate. However, I am rather disappointed by those Conservative Members who have spoken, including the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Many of them must have extremely short memories. Having been a member of a local authority in Hampshire, I remember the pain and destruction inflicted by not only Tory-controlled local authorities, including the Tory-controlled Hampshire county council, but the Tory Government, in acquiescing time and again to developers' pleas for ever more housing in Hampshire. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who time and again successfully supported building on the green belt rather than stopping it, so it is therefore a bit rich for him and others—
Mr. Lilley: I speak as a local Member. For 18 years, I opposed every project to build on the green belt in my constituency, and up to now I have succeeded.
Mr. Hancock: I welcome that, as, I am sure, do the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. He is worried about his own constituency, but he did not show much anxiety for other people's constituencies during the '80s and '90s, when he was part of a Government who manifestly did not care much about the green belt and did not take much notice of local people, whether they were dealing with a Labour-controlled council or a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. They completely ignored local pleas. It is therefore a bit rich for some Members now to plead that they have suddenly found that they have to fight their own corner. Many of us lost battles in the past and paid a heavy price for doing so.
I welcome the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that no one has a monopoly over the green belt or can claim credit for having more of a conscience now for what went on in the past. We all have a part to play, and we must all work together to ensure that we protect what we have and make better use of land that has already been developed.
Interestingly, the hon. Members who have spoken so far have offered no constructive alternatives to building on the green belt. As a nation, we still have nearly 750,000 empty properties. I accept the argument that possibly half of those are in parts of the country in which people do not want to live and which do not have the job opportunities that should be available for people, but that still leaves many hundreds of thousands of empty properties in and around our big cities and towns, which, for one reason or another, stand empty. We need constructive policies that will allow those properties to come into use.
I wonder how many Members of the House of Commons live in homes that were built on the green belt or are the result of infill or backland development. I live in a house that 40 years ago would have been considered
76WH
to be on the edge of a green belt, on the outskirts of Portsmouth. However, a house was there 100 years ago. My house is in the garden of a much bigger house that is still there. It made good use of land between a road, a house and the railway that runs behind. However, that is not the only answer.
In my county, endless acres of brownfield land have been occupied for the best part of a century by the Ministry of Defence, and successive Governments of both persuasions have neglected to release that land. They have seen anchors and chains rotting away on brownfield sites, when on the other side of the road, greenfield sites have been built on, in some instances simply to store empty containers and anchors of battleships that have long been scrapped. It is a public disgrace that, in a county such as Hampshire, so much derelict land should have been owned by the nation while so much of our green space was being eaten away.
We must consider what to do to resolve the problem. The pressure will not go away. The pressure for people to have somewhere decent to live is with us all. As Members of the House, we are probably confronted daily by letters from people living in pretty horrendous living conditions. The need to generate better homes is with us constantly. Such pressure will not diminish over the next 10 years. It will be constant, as the population lives longer and more people want to live independently and move into better accommodation.
Developers eye the countryside with relish. I have been involved in local government for 30 years and have seen developers building land banks, sometimes with not an inkling of a chance of a site being developed for 10, 15 or 20 years. They knew that the demand for such sites would be constant and that, sooner or later, their dream to realise a return on their investment in buying up options and farmland would materialise.
There was not a proper process for controlling how the land was developed because developers were not under pressure to look at other sites. They were not given a great deal of assistance to bring sites into use that had been used for commercial purposes. In many instances, land was heavily contaminated and the grants were not sufficient to make some of those sites viable for development purposes. It must have been in the nation's interest—and must still be—for the Government to give sufficient assistance to develop those sites and bring them into use.
Everyone in the Chamber believes that the green belt and the countryside are worth preserving and that any development should be allowed only after the most intrusive scrutiny. We want to see the national resource of the countryside protected and finances to be released to clean up the sites. We must give incentives to developers to use the opportunities that are available in our towns and cities. If we do not do that, the argument about the green belt will be repeated again and again. Opposition and Government Members may change, but there will still be pressure for homes, pressure from developers, and the cry that we must not build on the green belt. We must find a balance.
Over the past few months, the Government have tried to bring some semblance of balance. Matters cannot be decided at a local level. The pressures are too great. The easiest way to deal with the problem is for a regional view of housing to be worked on collectively by local

77WH
government. If a common approach were taken and local authorities could learn to work together more closely along with the Government, the problem might be resolved. We shall be put under constant pressure because developers know that sooner or later they will win. They will continue with the wearing-down process at local authority, ministerial and planning inspector levels. They will repeatedly take on the system.
Developers have three things on their side—time, resources and the pressure from people who want somewhere decent to live. They know that if they adopt a scattergun approach often enough, sooner or later their reward will come. I hope that the Minister will say that she is completely committed to the principle that no element of the green belt should go cheaply and, if any of it does, it should be only after the most rigorous examination. None of it should go until we determine properly our policies on inner city and brownfield development. We need to make our cities and our towns attractive again for people to want to live in them. We do not want to fall into the trap of the previous Government, who, for 18 years, ignored the pleas to protect the countryside, and allowed their developer friends to rape the green and pleasant land that we all now claim to want to protect.
10.34 am
Mr. Damian Green: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate, and I assure him that, while he spoke eloquently for his own constituents, he spoke not only for people in Hertfordshire, and his passion for defending the green belt was evident. This is an issue that has rightly been rising up the political agenda over large swathes of the country, partly because the green belt is seen to be in more crisis than ever. This is an extremely topical debate.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made an interesting contribution. I suspect that we would agree with his wish that this were a consensual, non-party issue. It would be good if the green belt were not part of partisan political debate. Sadly, that is no longer the case. We all accept the realities, and we see from this morning's debate that everyone accepts that the Government of the day must make difficult individual choices about difficult individual issues. Therefore, the criterion by which to judge the attitude of the Government of the day is their general presumption—whether or not they feel that the green belt should be protected except in small-scale, exceptional circumstances. The evidence of their attitude is staring us in the face in the regional planning guidance documents that are being produced for various areas of the country, to which several hon. Members have referred.
It is especially sad for those who wish the issue were non-partisan that the regional planning documents show that the green belt is under threat in five of the nine English regions. That is not only regrettable; it is shaming that the Government have been reduced to that. Several of my hon. Friends have said that the Government who came to office promising to be the greenest Government ever have not only failed to live up
78WH
to that promise, but are systematically undermining the protection provided to the green belt by previous Governments of bath parties. That is regrettable. Most of the debate has been about housing, but other issues have been mentioned. Notably, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) spoke about the problems of airport expansion, which clearly involves important and difficult decisions for any Government. The Central railway issue was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). In parenthesis, I agree with his call on the Minister to reject the hybrid Bill route for any Central rail proposal. That would be an abuse of the system, partly because the promoters of Central rail are trying to use that procedure to avoid answering detailed questions that should be dealt with before the project goes ahead.
To return to the main issue of housing, the Minister for Housing and planning has been entirely explicit about the matter. Speaking in the House, he said:
"in certain cases when it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green belt boundaries"—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 531.]
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the Minister said:
"it is true that we are allowing some Green Belts to be reviewed."
"Reviewed" is a weasel word in this context. The Government are allowing the green belt to be eroded in various areas, which has serious long-term consequences throughout the country. We have already heard how the Cambridge green belt is under threat. Indeed, on 27 Match 2000 the Minister's Department issued a press release saying that the Cambridge green belt is
"an essential part of the process of finding sustainable locations for development."
Words can clearly mean anything under this Government, if the green belt is a sustainable location for development. The point about preserving the green belt is to preserve sustainability. We have heard about Stevenage, but there are similar examples throughout the country. Some 2,500 homes are being built on the green belt near Newcastle, although there are 4,000 empty homes in Newcastle, which the Labour party controls. The Deputy Prime Minister overturned the inspector's recommendation not to build a proposed 150-acre industrial development on the green belt near Sutton Coldfield. There is a widespread national crisis.
In the Government's defence, they are reflecting their Back Benchers' views. The rural group of Labour Members of Parliament, which consists of 168 Members, issued a rural manifesto calling for more building on the green belt and the scrapping of planning restrictions on agricultural land. The new-found neglect of the green belt's importance runs right through the parliamentary Labour party. That is regrettable.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is no longer in his place, said that blame for building on the green belt is a non-partisan issue, but that all the problems with the green belt in Stevenage are the previous Government's fault. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was characteristically generous in not mentioning the full role played by Liberal Democrat councillors in Stevenage in enabling the

79WH
environmental vandalism to go ahead. They changed the council's standing orders so that the decision to drive through the proposal could be taken outside full council, in case decent members of the Labour or Liberal Democrat groups might vote against it.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South mentioned his party's history, but he could act now to persuade his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat benches of Hertfordshire county council to change their minds. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned that Cambridge city council, which the Liberal Democrats control, is driving through proposals to damage the green belt around Cambridge. The national Liberal Democrat party could take decisions now on matters for which it has such responsibility.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South eloquently made the point that the green belt is not only a matter of concern in the south-east. He talked about its importance north of Birmingham. It is equally important south of Birmingham. I draw the Minister's attention to the problem of the proposed new service area on the M42. A concerned local resident, Mrs. Jean Hill, has written to the Deputy Prime Minister, and others, that she is "appalled" that he has given
"the go ahead for a Motorway Service area"
in the green belt. She says:
"The concept of the Green Belt being a protected area is a farce and is only adhered to it seems until it suits Government and vested interests."
That is the key point. I hope that the Minister will take the letter to heart. The view is now widespread throughout the country that the previous protection to the countryside that the green belt afforded has been weakened.
I know that we all want to hear the Minister's comments. I am sure that, repeating what her colleagues have often said, she will say that the Government have created 30,000 new hectares of green belt, so the charges laid at their door are unfair, but all the new land that has been designated green belt was already green land, and was not threatened. Since the Government are prepared to allow development on greenbelt land, designating existing greenfield as greenbelt land is meaningless. It adds only a false protection, because other greenbelt land is disappearing.
An addiction to central housing targets is behind the Government's problem in adhering to the previous consensus on the green belt. They still want a centrally planned system that drives housing numbers down from the centre. That system entails an all-powerful and all-knowing Minister who sits in Whitehall and decides how many new homes must be built. He or she divides that figure among the regions, regardless of the desires of local people and local councils. That is a top-down centralist system, which all sensible organisations have abolished for large-scale planning. For some reason, we preserve that method in our housing system, despite the fact that it puts added pressure on the green belt.
To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, with which I agreed, that system encourages development outside city centres, which hollows out our city centres, and that is a serious long-term problem. The underlying problem of a centralist system explains why we think that the planning system
80WH
must be radically reformed; it should be bottom-up not top-down. Local people must decide the long-term consequences for their areas. In that regard, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that that is best done at a regional level. To take the example of Stevenage, its environmental issues would be decided by the south-east regional assembly in Brighton, which is even further away from Stevenage than Whitehall. To move to a regional system strikes me as a bizarre.
As we all know, we are coming up to a general election and anyone who cares about the green belt has a clear choice. The Government's policy is stuck in the past, insensitive to local concerns and driven entirely by Whitehall. Our alternative policy protects both our countryside and our inner cities. It would preserve and enhance the green belt and it would save our precious countryside for future generations. Our approach is not only popular, but the right thing to do for the future of our green belt and our countryside.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I begin as usual by congratulating the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate on the future of the green belt, which is an important subject. The Opposition have frequently tried to suggest that the Government's commitment to the green belt is open to question. However, every time they have made that suggestion we have rebutted it by demonstrating our record, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) mentioned specific cases. They will understand that I cannot comment today on those proposals or potential proposals, which, in one way or another, were all concerned with the green belt. However, I can assure hon. Members of the Government's absolute commitment to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for reminding their hon. Friends, who seemed confused, about the green belt's purpose. It is not a designation of quality or countryside—although those are important—but is a method of restricting urban sprawl. Over the past four years, the Government's record not only demonstrates our commitment, but is in stark contrast with events when the Opposition were in government.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) mentioned—and I am grateful to him—that since we entered office an additional 30,000 hectares of green belt has been designated. Contrary to his remarks, that is not a meaningless achievement. It demonstrates our commitment not only to maintaining, but, where possible, to increasing that designation. I can contrast that with many celebrated examples of de-designation under the previous Administration. For example, two out-of-town supermarkets were built at White Rose, which involved the loss of green belt. Furthermore,

81WH
Bluewater park in the Thames Gateway resulted in the loss of more than 100 hectares of green belt, and added to the previous Government's record of destroying town centres by letting rip with out-of-town retail developments.
Planning policy guidance 2 "Green Belts" states that regional planning guidance sets the framework for greenbelt policy in an area, and that detailed greenbelt boundaries are set in development plans. The RPGs will say whether, in the view of the regional planning body, there is a case for a strategic review of a region's greenbelt boundaries. The new regional planning guidance 9 for the south-east, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertsmere, was published last month. It makes it clear that there is no regional case for reviewing greenbelt boundaries.
The hon. Member for Ashford said that other regional planning guidances in draft or final versions have recommended a review of green belts. That is true. However, let me make it clear that the Government have not initiated those proposals for reviews of boundaries. The process of regional strategic planning starts with local authorities making strategic proposals for development. Those proposals are examined by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, which makes representations to him for each RPG. In some cases, panels have endorsed reviews of green belts; in others, they have dismissed that option.
Even where the respective regional planning guidance has identified the need for a review, such a review does not automatically lead to a reduction in the size of green belts. It may find no case for change or a need to increase the size of green belt or adjust the boundary.
Mr. Green: The Minister has tried to give hon. Members the impression that these matters are decided by the regional planning body and that the Government are a residual part of the process. However, as she knows, the proposals for housing numbers in the south-east that were proposed by the south-east regional planning committee, Serplan, were comprehensively rejected by the Government, who insisted on a bigger figure. The Government are taking all the decisions on reviewing the green belt, not the regional planning bodies.
Ms Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall explain why in a moment, using the south-east as an example.
Any review of the green belt would lead, at the most, only to the minimum adjustment necessary to achieve development plans. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that he accepts that entirely. If he accepts that the main purpose of greenbelt land is to contain potential urban sprawl, it is logical also to accept that an adjustment to the boundaries that pertain at the moment is entirely consistent with a commitment to the principle and actuality of the green belt and is not tantamount to saying that we have no regard for it. The hon. Gentleman said that greenbelt boundaries are not being set in aspic, which is correct. Allowing the potential for reviews of greenbelt boundaries does not in any way diminish our commitment to the principle and actuality of the current scale of greenbelt land.
82WH
On the south-cast, specifically Hertfordshire, I understand that Hertfordshire county council now proposes to review its structure plan to reflect the new regional planning guidance for the south-east that has just been put in place. I found it interesting that no Conservative Member said anything about housing needs, which is the other side of the coin. It is astonishing that they can talk about such issues without mentioning what is driving the debate. I can tell them that the Government intend that everybody should have the opportunity to have a decent home.
In the light of the consultation on the south-east draft RPG, we revised the proposed housing provision downwards from an average of 43,000 dwellings a year to 39,000 dwellings a year, at least for the next five years. It is possible that a higher rate of provision may be necessary from 2006 onwards, but that depends on the monitoring and assessment that needs to take place between then and now. I point out to the hon. Member for Ashford that in the case of Hertfordshire, that means that the number of new dwellings required each year in the period to 2006 will be no more than the county has already planned to provide. I am aware that, even before the RPG was published, the county council and district council in Hertfordshire had to think long and hard about the best way to meet existing housing needs. The county council opted for a strategy that relied on planned regeneration, with limited, small-scale peripheral development and an element of strategic development on greenfield locations.
The structure plan proposed two strategic releases of land from the green belt—one at Hemel Hempstead and the other at Stevenage, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said. For the record, I should point out that although the county council proposed some deletions of greenbelt land, it also intended significant additions, resulting in a net gain of about 4,500 hectares of green belt. I do not accept the hon. Member for Hertsmere's argument that land is of different species, and that greenbelt land in one area cannot be replaced with equivalent land elsewhere. That is a specious and frankly ridiculous argument.
Mr. Clappison: I remind the Minister that she began her contribution by saying that the purpose of the green belt was to prevent the coalescence of communities.
Ms Hughes: Abs, Mutely, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that, even in the terms of his own arguments, it is nonsense to say that the altering and adjusting of boundaries in one place to de-designate land cannot be compensated for in any way by strategic additions to the green belt elsewhere.
Hertfordshire county council is reviewing its structure plan to take on board our planning guidance, which is that redevelopment of brownfield land and re-use of existing buildings should be considered before building on greenfield land. That is the right and proper course of action. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, North Hertfordshire district council has sought to withdraw its development plan. That action has been challenged in the courts, and he will know that I cannot comment further while court action is pending. We shall have to await the outcome of that process.

83WH
Although I recognise the constituency concerns that have been expressed, I should say that I have heard a good deal of huffing and puffing from Opposition Members and very little substance in terms of this complex and difficult issue. They seem to be ignoring some very important facts. First, it is this Government who published the urban White Paper only six months ago. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) pointed out, it sets out a clear vision for achieving an urban renaissance, which is a very important part of the equation. If we can make our towns and cities more attractive and invest in quality services, there is less likely to be pressure to develop the countryside.
Secondly, it was this Government who put in place a firm target for re-using brownfield land, unlike the Opposition, who have a moving target at best. Our target, for which we are accountable, is that 60 per cent. of new dwellings should be built on previously developed land or delivered by converting existing buildings.
Thirdly, that target is backed by clear and firm planning guidance. The radical planning guidance for housing in PPG 3 has a clear sequential test that requires re-use of previously developed land before greenfield development is considered, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who acknowledged that fact. It also requires assessments of urban capacity such as those being undertaken in Hertfordshire and by many other local authorities. It seeks better quality development, design and layout, and better use of land than was ever achieved under the Conservative Government, who were profligate in their waste of land.
Fourthly, it was a Conservative Government who presided over a period of greenfield development and a scandalous waste of land. We are assessing brownfield land that is suitable for housing development.
Finally, we have done away with the Conservative policy of predict and provide. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ashford, who said that ours is a top-down approach. It is a bottom-up approach that gives responsibility to local authorities in regional context. It is a balanced, integrated policy that does not pretend that there are simple one-dimensional solutions to complex and competing pressures. by contrast, Tory policy is part of the bandwagon that we have come to expect, where the "not in my backyard" syndrome is presented as a substitute for substance and balance.

Solicitors
11 am
Mr. George Stevenson: I am enormously grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I hope that other hon. Members will want to contribute to a discussion that I believe to be of great significance.
Some would argue that self-regulation by solicitors has its place and that it can work, but I seriously doubt that. The Law Society is a bastion of self-regulation. It could be called a trade association in the widest sense of that term. It has had numerous opportunities to change the way in which it operates, but there is increasingly clear evidence that its attempts have not been successful.
When I knew that I had secured this debate, I thought about my constituents and wondered whether there was any other profession with which they came into more frequent contact than solicitors. I thought of doctors, MPs and others, but concluded that solicitors are the main interface between the public and the law—the first and in many cases the only point of contact between constituents and the law. It is therefore crucial not only that the service offered by solicitors is of the highest possible quality, but that people know that if there is cause for complaint and dissatisfaction, there is a credible mechanism for investigating those concerns.
The current mechanism bothers me and I know that it bothers my hon. Friend the Minister. He wrote to me on 14 September last year, saying:
"I would like to make it clear that the government still has considerable concerns about the operation at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) and wider concerns about the role of the Law Society as regulator of the legal profession."
I was very grateful for the letter and the time that the Minister gave to it. His statement indicates that there is concern not only among the public and MPs, but at ministerial level.
What have the Government done to address those concerns? A number of initiatives have been taken and we await their outcome. The first is the targets set by Ministers for the Law Society and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors to get their act together and improve performance. One might have thought that the strong message contained in the target setting—to which I know that the Minister is fully committed—would have hit the mark and that we might have seen some action, but I fear that that is not the case. The targets were set in July 1999, but the picture that emerges in respect of some of them is not encouraging.
One target set was that the percentage of cases in which the legal services ombudsman was satisfied with the handling of complaints by the OSS should not decrease by more than 1 per cent. from its then level of 64 per cent; however, within six months, the satisfaction level had fallen to 53 per cent. Another target stated that monthly progress reports were to be published, which was essential to demonstrate to the public and Parliament that the project was moving ahead according to plan. Those reports may have been published, but I have not had sight of one. Perhaps other hon. Members have seen them; if they have, I would be grateful for their advice, as it appears that that target has not been achieved either. Another target set was that 90 per cent. of cases should be dealt with within

85WH
three months of receipt of the case, and 100 per cent. within five months. According to my information, the outcome is "not known". The evidence for the OSS meeting the targets that were set is not encouraging. It appears that in some cases the targets were ignored and that in others they were not met.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): It might assist my hon. Friend if I confirm that the monthly reports were received by my Department. To précis: the numerical target of 6,000 cases which the Law Society was due to achieve by the end of December 2000 was the only target that was met.
Mr. Stevenson: On the basis of the information that I have received, that is subject to debate. That target may have been set and the Law Society might argue that it has met it, but I am advised that that takes no account of new cases. It simply refers to the backlog, and new cases are coming in at an increased rate. Although my hon. Friend's intervention was helpful, it must be put into context. I remain—like him, I am sure—far from satisfied that the Law Society has taken the targets seriously. That must be of enormous concern to him.
Mr. John Burnett: Albeit that the number of new cases registered is not necessarily a good guide, because some might be frivolous and some not, it is a guide none the less, so it is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that new complaints are being registered at an increasing rate. Does he know the rate at which they are increasing? That would be of great interest in this debate.
Mr. Stevenson: I have checked with the Library and I hope that I can find the figure in my pile of papers. According to my reading of the information that I received from the Library, there is a rising trend.
In the light of the concerns expressed, what has the Law Society decided to do? Toward the end of last year, it published a consultation document entitled, "A new Law Society for a changing profession". We all live in hope of a new Law Society. I responded to the document as, I am sure, did many of my colleagues, and I have the reply I received in front of me. As a non-lawyer—which is neither a good nor a bad thing—it was necessarily from a layperson's viewpoint that I commented on the document. After all, we are worried about the effect on the public and the service and what our constituents think about the legal profession and self-regulation.
The most cursory glance at the document, albeit from a layperson's perspective, convinced me that most of it relates to the interests of the profession. I could quote from the document, but I do not want to waste valuable time justifying a fair comment. Suffice it to say that little of the document relates to the public interest—indeed, the public interest is not reflected in the document. That is a cause of serious anxiety.
The first section of the document, headed "The reform proposals", states that the council of the Law Society
"resolved that the Society should set itself the goal of becoming a model regulator as well as measurably improving its performance as a representative body."
86WH
That sets the tenor and theme of the document. Given that the Law Society has so far miserably failed to achieve the targets that Ministers have set, we cannot have great confidence in its ability to achieve either of the objectives it has set itself.
The document is administrative. One of the two main proposals it contains is that the council should be increased from 75 to 120 members. That is fine—it might do the trick; on the other hand, we might end up with more people not doing what they should be doing. The proposal is not encouraging. The other main proposal is to appoint a lay commissioner to deal with cases involving what is described as "minor misconduct" and complaints. That might be a step in the right direction, but I am not convinced.
The document is designed to underpin the present self-regulatory system, which many of us believe has failed. It proposes cosmetic or administrative changes to the system that will have no effect other than to perpetuate a system that deals almost entirely with the interests of society members and has little to do with the interests of the public. Let me give two examples of why I am convinced of that. The first is slightly historical, and I hope that you, Mr. Cook, will indulge me a little.
In the mid to late-1980s, the Law Society and British Coal—now the Coal Authority—were engaged in a secret process. I say that the process was secret because, as far as I am aware having done a lot of research into the matter, they consulted no one. In 1989, the Law Society and the then British Coal decided to change the format and content of responses to mine searches in house and property conveyancing. The change related to standardising such responses for the convenience of solicitors. The argument was that the change was designed to make the matter easier for the public to understand, but I doubt that. They agreed to change the rules in 1989, but they did not advise any society members—solicitors—who were conveyancing properties until two years later, in 1991.
In the meantime, my constituents were buying and selling houses on the basis of the old formula. In 1991 they went to bed on a Sunday night and their house was worth X, but because of the changed formula, when they woke up Monday morning and tried to sell their house, they found that their property had been devalued—in some cases by two thirds. That happened in my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and in other constituencies in north Staffordshire.
It is obvious that the Law Society acted to make the life of its members easier. It took no account of the effect that such a change would have on the thousands of people who had bought their houses in good faith, or of the notorious unreliability of the Coal Authority's records. It was interested only in standardising the system and making the life of solicitors easier. What happened has a contemporary relevance. I am delighted to say that, 12 years later, after the most horrendous battle in which many of us were involved, some of my constituents have won compensation at the High Court. They had to take their battle there. We will wait to see if the Coal Authority appeals.
Why did the Law Society, which purports to protect the public interest, become engaged in such an exercise and turn a blind eye to the devastating effect that it had

87WH
on people? Twelve years later, recompense has been achieved, but it is interesting to note which organisation was taken to court and will have to cough up the money: it is not the Law Society, which has ridden away into the sunset, but the Coal Authority that will have to pay. Only one partner in that infamous partnership has been taken to task. The Law Society remains Teflon-coated.
I was grateful to the Minister for giving up his time to discuss with me the horrendous case of my constituent, Mr. Paul Tams. He was going through a particularly messy divorce and was involved with two firms of solicitors. The first one was the hors d'oeuvre, the second one was the main meal. The hors d'oeuvre was unpalatable, but the main meal was indigestible. The hors d'oeuvre was the solicitor A who, according to my constituent, Mr. Tams, was not satisfactory. My constituent consulted me and I made representations to the OSS, which investigated the master, and the Law Society. They did not want to know. The matter was referred to the legal services ombudsman, who found that there had been faults and told the OSS to undertake a further investigation because he was not happy with the results of the first. The OSS tool away the matter andsurprise—surprise—reached the same conclusion. Why should we be surprised by that, given that the reason the case was referred back to it was that the OSS had not done the job right in the first place? When the legal services ombudsman is not satisfied with the way in which complaints are handled, an adjudicator independent of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors should undertake a further investigation.
Now for the indigestible main course. My constituent, Mr. Tams, lost the case that he was pursuing and was saddled with the most enormous costs. Solicitors firm B—the other firm that was involved—was referred to the legal services ombudsman after my constituent consulted me. After investigating the case, the legal services ombudsman concluded that the firm had been "incompetent and inefficient". I wrote to the Law Society and the OSS to ask what they would do in the light of that judgment.
The reaction to the devastating judgment of the legal services ombudsman was that the trenches filled up, the battens were dropped and defence of the profession became paramount. The response fell into two categories. First, amazingly, the OSS accepted that firm B had been incompetent and inefficient—one cannot use stronger terms than that—but said that it could not take action against the firm because the code of conduct for the practice of solicitors had not been breached.
How can a firm be deemed Incompetent and inefficient, yet be protected by the code of conduct set down by the Law Society? What must a firm be deemed to be before it breaks the code of conduct—murderers? Must we do DNA testing? What must a firm do before there is a breach of the inviolate code of conduct, which is there to protect solicitors, not the public? I do not have the answer to that, but I hope that the Minister does.
Again, I challenged that answer vigorously on behalf of my constituent—other hon. Members would have done no less. I received another reason why action could not be taken, which was that firm B had acted on behalf of my constituent's ex-wife, not him, and that the client, not a third party, must make the complaint. There may be reasons for that, which I do not understand, but it
88WH
makes not one iota of difference to the fact that firm B was deemed to be incompetent and inefficient and my constituent suffered.
The hatches were battened down, the guns were put out and the trenches were filled with Law Society interests. If you try to take those trenches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have a battle on your hands. I have been a trade unionist all my life, but I have never seen such an effective body as the Law Society. I take my hat off to it. If we had been as effective in my trade union days, Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, would not have touched us with a bargepole. I do not blame any Government for not taking on the Law Society—it is highly effective at doing what it does best, which is protecting the interests of its own members.
The matter has been going on for some time. I have had the pleasure of meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) when he was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; I also had the pleasure of discussing the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) when he held that position. All my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with the Law Society, and I have the correspondence to prove it. If solicitors are incompetent and inefficient but have not broken the code of practice, nothing can be done. If a firm acts on behalf of someone other than the third party, but the third party suffers as a consequence of its incompetence, nothing can be done. I want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to know that I am disappointed, especially as the Government, through the office that he now holds, agree with such damaging nonsense. That cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The Ministers agree with that incredible situation, as does the legal services ombudsman. I also have in my possession letters from that office. It is, supposedly, the guardian of the public interest—its longstop, its last resort—and it found firm B to be incompetent and inefficient, yet it agrees with the Law Society's statement that nothing can be done because the code of conduct has not been breached. That is incredible.
Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman has presented a powerful argument. Was no sanction, such as a fine or a rebuke, levied against the firm by the OSS? Did the injured party instigate proceedings against the law firm?
Mr. Stevenson: The answer to the first question is no. I have the documentation to prove that: I have letters from the OSS that baldly state that the case is closed and that it is not prepared to pursue the matter further. Those letters express incredible insensitivity and arrogance—and there must be more fine words that could be used to describe that attitude.
The answer to the second question is also no: those involved simply washed their hands of the matter. It is neither acceptable nor in the public interest that Ministers, the Law Society and the OSS agree that nothing can be done because the code of practice was not breached.
Self-regulation worries me, although it might have a role to play. The public interest is what matters, not the interests of lawyers and solicitors, yet the current system does not take account of the public interest, and I doubt

89WH
whether that will be changed by the marginal alterations proposed by the Law Society. There is a truckload of evidence to support my contention that that self-regulatory body prioritises the interests of its members, rather than those of the public. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister at least to consider removing the activities of the OSS from that self-regulatory body and entrusting them to an independent body. If that were done, the vital task of restoring public confidence in the legal profession could begin.
11.28 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise with trepidation, as I am surrounded by many solicitors whose aim is to articulate their vested interests. However, this is a consumer matter: Members of Parliament represent the consumers and want to protect their interests. Those interests are not protected by the present structure—indeed, they are probably endangered, as practices increase in size and production-line law becomes more common owing to the pressure of costs.
The public need the law more than ever before. They need it to protect a wide range of their interests, including employment and matrimonial rights and disputes, but the law is pricing its services beyond the range of most people. The law is now needed by people who are not familiar with the middle-class tradition of a long-standing connection with "my solicitor". They need the protection of an independent system of regulation to protect their rights and to ensure that they can access legal services with confidence.
I am aware that that is a difficult matter, because few people are satisfied after a legal action, but that is the reason why regulation must be independent. An independent regulator would be able to judge whether a legal failure was the result of the inadequacy of the case or the incompetent performance of solicitors. That task cannot be performed by a self-regulatory framework managed by vested interests. The Mafia cannot regulate the Mafia; it is logically impossible and it does not happen in respect of the police or other sections of the regulatory world. That system of the Mafia regulating the Mafia has failed in the law, it is continuing to fail and it ought to be abolished. Otherwise people will be unable have confidence in the sector. The saga is a long-running one.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He dealt powerfully with the case against self-regulation in its present form. I remember having lots of disputes with the Solicitors Complaints Bureau which, when I referred matters to it, always came back with the same answer: it always suggested hiring another solicitor to sue the first solicitor and throwing good money after bad.
I recall a dispute in my constituency over a few yards of land on a transfer. The first firm of solicitors dealt with the matter totally incompetently, advised suing everyone involved but did not take the obvious route of referring to the Land Registry to discover what was in the deeds. That firm was censured by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, which recommended the client to sue it. Another firm was hired, although it is difficult to
90WH
get firms to sue each other in a small community such as Grimsby, because they do not like to break the freemasonry. However, the client sued the firm. When that proved equally unsuccessful, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau recommended hiring a third firm of solicitors to sue the second firm.
Such ludicrous developments were typical of the regime and still are. They produced pressure for change and a drive for independent regulation, which began in the 1980s. That movement was backed by our Prime Minister when he was first elected to Parliament; he said that there should be independent regulation. I recall debating the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which took us towards that goal—that was in the days when I could get on Standing Committees dealing with subjects in which I had an interest. That Act created the legal services ombudsman to carry out independent scrutiny and the complaints escalated.
In 1996, the Law Society opted for a respray. The Solicitors Complaints Bureau became the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and asked for patience for three years in which to get its act together and make the service effective. The director left before those three years were up—the first of a series of directors to leave. It must be one of the most invidious jobs in the country, seeing as people parachute out of it at such an extraordinary rate. The Law Society demanded 18 months more to get its act straight. In that it is unlike the people whom its members represent in court, few of whom ask for 18 months more on their sentence.
The Lord Chancellor set targets that were, presumably, agreed with the Law Society, which told us that enough investment was in place to do the job and reach the targets. We set off again happily, hoping that something would be done, although I do not think that much was. As the Minister wrote to hon. Members in November 1999. solicitors were told:
"If that does not happen, the Government will use the powers in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to enforce a proper complaints system for solicitors through the legal services ombudsman."
That did not happen.
I worry, as the Minister worries, that the Lord Chancellor's Department is in collusion with the Law Society to enable the society to avoid the consequences of its incompetence: and to protect it from the necessary action that has to follow. I pay tribute to the current Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), who has been accommodating, frank and open with hon. Members in providing us with information. However, the whole Department does not share his views and always puts the performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in the best light.
It was clear that the Law Society had not met and could not meet its targets. They were therefore diluted, although the Lord Chancellor warned the Law Society that it was on its last chance and that he could not be clearer than that. Let us examine the process of dilution. The Law Society report summarily halved the annual number of complaints without any justification. The legal services ombudsman did not comment on that, but continued to quote the original, higher number of complaints for six months before suddenly quoting the adjusted lower figure.

91WH
The Lord Chancellor told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that client or consumer satisfaction was a basic consideration, but consumers or clients were rigorously excluded. In November 2000, and again in February this year, leaks from the legal services ombudsman showed that the ombudsman had been inundated with complaints about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. There were complaints about handling procedures, and the Lord Chancellor's targets set deadlines varying from immediately to 18 months, but none of those targets was met. A diluted target was then accepted by the Lord Chancellor. Under the original target, the number of complaints with whose handling the ombudsman was satisfied should not have decreased by more than 1 per cent., but within six months, the satisfaction level had fallen from 64 per cent. to 53 per cent. A new target has now been agreed.
It was originally claimed that the number of unresolved cases on the books of t he Office for the Supervision of Solicitors should be reduced to 6,000 by 31 December 2000. My hon. Friend the Minister told us that that target was reached. It was proclaimed in an amendment to my early-day motion by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the Law Society, with overwhelming support from a small group of five people whose views I respect. Have the targets been achieved? The number of unsatisfactorily handled complaints should surely be added to the 6,000 unresolved targets, so there are really 13,000 unresolved cases. In the light of that, the target becomes laughable. Under the original target, 90 per cert. of cases should have been dealt with within three months of receipt and 100 per cent. within five months. We do not know yet whether that happened—we have no been told—but a new, lower target has been decided and allocated by the Law Society. The society has failed to reach its targets, failed to fulfil the assurances given to the public and failed to satisfy the Lord Chancellor's requirements. There is clearly no satisfaction.
A large number of hon. Members wish to speak, some of whom wish to defend the vested interests of the profession, so I shall conclude by saying that this is a matter of basics. The system is failing: it was not adequate in the first place, and it cannot command confidence because people cannot see that justice is being done by a body that is financed and run by the Law Society but adjudicates on the decisions of solicitors. That cannot command satisfaction. Clearly, the Law Society has tried, and I give credit to the present president of the Law Society—it certainly had problems with the last chief executive. However it cannot stem the rising tide of complaints that reflect a rising tide of dissatisfaction. Radio and television programmes featuring the profession show the hostility and dissatisfaction of people dealing with solicitors. People are simply not happy. It is our job to protect consumers and to ensure that their interests are protected. A self-regulatory framework cannot satisfy them, because it is not seen to be fair.
The Law Society appears unable to be efficient because complaints never have a high enough priority in the organisation. Indeed, I wonder whether it can afford to provide the proper machinery to adjudicate complaints. The system cannot give compensation or real satisfaction to customers, which is what they are out to get. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-
92WH
Trent, South graphically showed, it does not deal effectively with the firms against which complaints are made. No sanctions operate, and consumers receive no compensation.
Sadly, we have to conclude that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot regulate effectively on the matter, because it has taken on the role of protecting the vested interests rather than acted as the representative of Parliament and consumers to ensure that the profession lives up to requirements. I am sad to see a steady turnaround in what I hoped would be a reforming Lord Chancellor's Department that would drastically change the structures of the profession and regulation. It now has its own problems and is fighting a rearguard action against the proposed Ministry of Justice, but I give it no sympathy or support in that struggle. It is about time that the Department showed its value by protecting consumers. We cannot have a Lord Chancellor's Department behaving like "King Log", blocking the path to reform.
There is no way out except independent regulation. It may have to be financed partly by the Law Society and partly from public funds, but the regulation framework must be independent, include non-solicitors and the consumer interest and have the power to impose fines and sanctions and to grant compensation to people who have not received a satisfactory service. The Government have, rightly, chosen that path after years of Tory attempts to have self-regulation in everything—indeed, I thought at one time that they would produce a self-regulating society with no public authorities regulating at all. The Government have introduced independent regulation in financial services with a power to act effectively. For other consumer matters, we already had trading standards officers to introduce independent intervention and regulation. For administrative matters, we have an ombudsman, who is not powerful enough, but is fulfilling a satisfactory role. On food matters, we have the Food Standards Agency to provide independent regulation. We cannot make progress in an increasingly important area, in which consumers are so exposed to professional ramps, self-congratulation and self-service, without effective and independent regulation of complaints against solicitors—and the Bar.
11.43 am
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate. I have informed both him and the Minister that I must leave a little early for another appointment and I will, unfortunately, miss the Minister's speech.
It is a little unfair to depict me as coming here to defend self-interest. The interest that I declare is that for 20 years I was a solicitor in private practice. I gave up as soon as I was elected to Parliament, because that was important to me. I stopped holding a practising certificate, which allows people to act as lawyers, but I have kept my name on the roll of solicitors, which simply means that I receive a weekly magazine called the Gazette from the Law Society. That is the extent of my interest.
I share my hon. Friend's concern that when people go to lawyers, they should receive a good quality of service. If they do not, there should be a simple process whereby

93WH
they can have redress for what has gone wrong. That is absolutely right. The wider issue, which is what we have debated so far, is whether self-regulation can ever work. That is a valuable debate to have, but I take a slightly different view from the one that has so far been expressed. First, in fairness to lawyers—this may be one of the few things that is said in fairness to them today—it is true that good lawyers act as public interest guardians every day in the work that they do in a society that prides itself on due process of law. It is important to place that fact on the record.
There is much questioning in today's society about whether self-regulation can work. That debate does not focus solely on the legal profession; because of some notable failures of self-regulation, the medical profession has recently come under a great deal of pressure and faced calls for change. On the other hand, there is traffic in the other direction, such as the general teaching councils that were set up by this Parliament. I offer two thoughts about self-regulation. First, self-regulation can work if it adapts to new consumer attitudes and demands. Secondly, if self-regulation does not work, Government can regulate more, but that would not necessarily exempt the regulatory system from the need to meet consumer expectations.
When I was a solicitor, I did not have much to do with the Law Society or the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors or its predecessor, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. I do not know whether people will think that my lack of dealings with the former is a merit, but I certainly hope that they will think that as far as the latter is concerned. It is true that I now have many more dealings with the Law Society, because it recognises me as someone who is sympathetic to its cause. I accept that; nevertheless, I am a critical friend. For example, when the Access to Justice Act 1999 went through Parliament, I served on the Standing Committee. By Committee stage, no provision had been made in the Bill for statutory regulation. I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who was then a Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, that there should be such a provision as a reserve power to hang over the heads of lawyers. I do not know whether I was the only voice or one of many; nevertheless, the Bill was changed, and there is now such provision.
Mr. Stevenson: As a friendly critic of the Law Society, when my hon. Friend was practising, would he have expected action to be taken against him and his firm by the Law Society if he and his firm were deemed to be inefficient and incompetent?
Mr. Kidney: Yes, absolutely. There should be a simple and effective system for lawyers practising today. My hon. Friend has listed the ways in which he thinks the system is deficient at present, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to move to statutory regulation.
The Lord Chancellor used the provision that hangs over the head of the Law Society to achieve certain changes. Whatever people might say about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, it is true that the Law Society doubled its budget to £10 million and employed
94WH
another 155 staff to deal with complaints. The number of complaints fell—the actual figures are disputed—from about 17,000 to about 6,000 by the end of last year. Similarly, the time taken to deal with complaints has decreased. However, turnaround times and quality must still be improved and that is why the Lord Chancellor imposed new performance targets. He continues to hold a reserve power of statutory regulation over the head of the Law Society if it does not comply with his targets.
In the meantime legal self-regulation is changing for the better. I am happy about the present leadership's emphasis on lawyers providing a quality service and dealing with complaints in-house. I am happy that lay members are now involved in the work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I am happy that the Lord Chancellor's Department has imposed performance targets and that there is independent scrutiny by the legal services ombudsman. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that more changes are proposed. I am pleased about the possible appointment of a lay commissioner, a complaints redress scheme, the increase to £5,000 for compensation awards, the power to reduce bills and require remedial action, greater use of mediation and conciliation, and guilty lawyers paying part of the cost of regulation, which is similar to the so-called "polluter pays" principle.
I am happy to see that the Gazette, which I still read four years later, has increased its emphasis on good practice by lawyers. A recent issue includes good practice guidenotes for lawyers to follow and an article by Janet Paraskeva, the present chief executive of the Law Society, entitled "Ten steps to success". I would be happy to show the article to my hon. Friend so that he can see the many references to the public interest and consumers. That is a reassuring development. Change is coming, even though my hon. Friend can point to a time when it was not.
Finally, it is vital that the quality of service and the outcomes are right. If they are not, the Law Society has blown it, and I would expect—as everyone else would—the Lord Chancellor to use his reserve power and introduce the statutory scheme for regulation.
11.49 am
Mr. Mark Fisher: Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on initiating a debate that has wide implications for our constituents. He made a powerful case, as a highly experienced trade unionist with the Transport and General Workers Union, for the effectiveness of the Law Society as a trade union body representing its members. I agree, and have experienced many of the things that he and other hon. Members have described. In my experience the oft—suggested solution—that solicitors take up cases against other solicitors—is a fantasy. I have had enormous difficulties in Stoke-on-Trent getting any solicitor to take up a case on behalf of a constituent against another solicitor. That is a genuine difficulty.
The problems arising from the self-regulating nature of the Law Society are not solely to do with discipline. I would like to raise a different concern about how effectively the Law Society responds to the problems of my constituents, and what pressure, as the representative trade union body, it is putting on the

95WH
Government on certain issues. My key concern is access to legal advice and representation for my constituents and others in cities like Stoke-on-Trent. In particular, I am concerned about access to legal representation on basic matters of everyday concern to my constituents—housing, education, social services, debt, welfare rights and immigration. Those are matters of enormous importance but, at the moment, representation is hard to get in some cases. I want to know from the Minister the extent to which the Law Society it concerned about the problem, what pressure it is putting on the Minister and what its solutions are.
I commend the Government on the introduction of legal aid contracting, of which I am a strong supporter. However, in Stoke-on-Trent, a city of 275,000 people and the 11th biggest in the country, there is no solicitor with an education contract—indeed, there is no solicitor in the whole of Staffordshire with an education contract. There is one solicitor with a contract for debt, one solicitor for welfare rights, one for mental health and two for immigration in a city that has a large Kashmiri population. What are my constituents to do?
Has the Minister received representations from the Law Society on those matters? Does the society share our concerns? One solution that it might recommend to
the Minister—I would be interested to know whether it has done so—is to increase the number of tolerances. However, that is not ideal, because it raises the question of quality thresholds. As I understand it, the Legal Services Commission is trying—correctly in my view—to close down tolerances, because there is no way of ensuring quality if tolerances spread. There are solicitors in my constituency who take up that sort of work and have as few as 10 tolerances a year that they can take outside their contract. One solicitor said that he could do 10 in a week, such is the demand in areas such as education.
Stoke-on-Trent has a strong, forceful and good local education authority. It operates—I suspect with the approval of the Government—a tough policy on those who disrupt education, and the exclusion rate in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the highest in the country. However, even if young people are disrupting education, they and their parents have a right to representation and, as there are no solicitors with education con tracts in the city, that presents a real problem. There appears to be no solution. What is the Law Society saying to the Minister about it and what is it doing about it? What is it offering on behalf of the profession? Does it as I fear it may, support the initiative of the eight big London firms that have set up their own law school in London to cream off the talent for commercial law? That is not the way to go, as I hope that the Minister will agree. It will create problems rather than solve them.
Is the Law Society pressing for better rates of pay? That would provide only a partial solution to the shortages of contracts. I was amazed to find that caseworkers in Stoke-on-Trent start their legal careers representing my constituents on £14,000 a year, and that a fully qualified solicitor in Stoke earns on average about £18,000 a year. No wonder it is difficult to recruit people. When there is no contract, it is almost impossible to persuade the commission that a firm has the experience to get the work and qualify for a contract.
96WH
The Law Society may be pressing the Minister and his representatives for a system of fully salaried solicitors, perhaps modelled on the immigration expansion package. That idea has some virtues. However, it is unclear whether the Law Society is exercising itself at all. It has a duty to defend not only solicitors, but the whole legal profession, and it must be a powerful voice on behalf of solicitors' clients as well. Many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South about how the Law Society protects itself from criticism would appear in a different light if it took a positive and imaginative approach to improving the quality of legal representation on crucial social issues such as education, social services, debt, welfare rights, immigration and so on.
In a nutshell, cities such as Stoke-on-Trent do not have enough suppliers. That is a problem, as my constituents are often desperate. There are no easy solutions. I gather from the papers that Mr. Steve Orchard, the chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, is pressing the Government hard on such issues, as I hope the Minister will confirm. Is the Law Society doing so? It has questions to answer on self-regulation and discipline and it must be much more energetic about legal representation for some of the poorest and most needy members of our society.
11.57 am
Mr. John Burnett: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing this important debate. I should declare the fact that I am a solicitor, but one who ceased to practise shortly after being elected to the House, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I am definitely not an apologist for either branch of the legal profession. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions on some specific matters.
Will the Minister confirm whether the lay members of the Law Society's supervision committee—it supervises the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors—are in the majority, as I believe they are? I am also anxious to know who chooses the lay members.
The ability to transfer a case from the OSS to the legal services ombudsman is fairly narrow. I understand that a case or complaint has to exhaust the OSS process before the ombudsman can consider whether her organisation should deal with it if it is referred to her. Does the Minister know whether there is a rising trend of cases being examined by the ombudsman? As I said in an intervention, cases referred to the OSS can be frivolous, but cases referred to the ombudsman are unlikely to be frivolous or vexatious. The statistics would be interesting.
Mr. stevenson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those statistics may or may not support an opinion? An increasing number of my constituents are losing faith in the ability of self-regulation to protect their interests, but they refuse to make a complaint. The statistics might show only the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall return to it later.
The legal services ombudsman refers cases back to the OSS and has minor powers to fine. Is the Minister satisfied not only that the legal services ombudsman has

97WH
sufficient powers to impose fines in individual cases but that the ombudsman has adequate powers in relation to the OSS and to the appropriate committee of the Bar Council?
Although the debate is about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, I should not like to let it pass without referring to the make-up and effectiveness of the supervisory committees of other professions—I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is interested in that subject. En passant, I cite the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects. Do the Government believe that it is time to have an independent adjudicator to look at the conduct and costs of all the professions? Are they satisfied that those professions that are not independently regulated should be the ultimate judges in their own causes? Do the Government believe that the clients of the professions—should have recourse to an independent adjudication process? This country has many excellent professionals, and I believe in self-regulation. Nevertheless, should not consumers ultimately have recourse to independent adjudication, particularly in such vital matters as conduct and costs?
12.2 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on having raised a matter that is of considerable importance not only to him as a constituency Member of Parliament, but to all who are interested in the conduct of the provision of public services in the law. He made his case cogently and powerfully, as always, and I listened to him with great care. It is indisputable that he is no fan of self-regulation. That view is shared by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He and I have often debated on the Floor of the House the questions that we are discussing today—and the wider issues connected with the public funding of legal services—and I have read his contributions on the subject in the newspapers.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), too, is not a fan of self-regulation for the Law Society, although, from the tone of his remarks if not their substance, he seems more prepared to see both sides of the coin. Among the many interesting points that he raised was that of the funding of what I might call public service lawyers, important not only in his urban constituency but in the constituency of Great Grimsby, the Minister's constituency of Wyre Forest in the west midlands, and in Stafford, represented by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).
Indeed, even in my constituency, which is largely rural, there is much concern about the effect of the Government's reform of publicly funded legal services on the number of solicitors who are prepared to do the work. I believe that one dispute between the Lord Chancellor's Department and members of the Law Society who do criminal work has now been resolved, but there is a continuing dispute involving barristers who do publicly funded family work. However, I understand that the Minister or one of his colleagues has
98WH
laid a statutory instrument before the House to deal with arrangements for the funding of those services, which comes into force on 1 May.
A raft of issues as hidden beneath the surface of the debate, which although not strictly germane to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, should not be brushed aside.
Mr. Lock: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned about the funding of lawyers, why do the Conservative part's proposals include the removal of £236 million from debt welfare benefits, in addition to the other proposals mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and the removal of £300 million from family law, thus excluding all those services from public funding?
Mr. Garnier: I lad hoped that we would be able to conduct this morning's discussions in a less contentious spirit than that adopted by the young Minister. We are not proposing to do those things, and that is probably where we should leave that Aunt Sally. I know that the Minister is keen or Aunt Sally. He likes to take her out from her old people's home most afternoons—
Mr. Mitchell: It makes a change from Prudence.
Mr. Garnier: Yes, but given the last Budget, even Prudence seems o have been put away in some oubliette. However, I am being diverted.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South quoted a list of complaints about the performance of the OSS in meeting the targets agreed between the Law Society and the Government Department with responsibility for that aspect of public policy. He also referred to the effect of the agreement between the National Coal Board—now the Coal Authority—and the Law Society on house values in his constituency. Those are important matters in any event, but especially for his constituents who are affected by them. I congratulate him on raising those issues in the Chamber this morning.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the case of one of his constituents. Mr. Tams, who has had a singularly unsatisfactory relationship with at least two firms of solicitors and seems to have been treated badly, both by those firms and by the profession. The hon. Gentleman is right to complain about how the matter has been handled, because it must have been frustrating not only for his constituent, but for him as a Member of Parliament who has his constituent's interests firmly in mind. As a member of the Bar and of the Opposition, I am not in a position to give him an answer, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to help.
Mr. Stevenson: I realise that time is pressing, but I want to make it clear that I am not complaining merely as a constituency Member of Parliament. How can a firm of solicitor; that has been deemed to be incompetent and inefficient be protected by the code of practice laid down by the Law Society from the consequences of that charge?
Mr. Garnier: The short answer is that I do not know. If a firm of solicitors has been incompetent, it should not

99WH
have been protected by the code of practice. I expect that the Minister will be able to provide the hon. Gentleman with the answer he seeks.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that he was surrounded by solicitors. He is not: there are only two in the Chamber, as well as two members of the Bar—the Minister and myself. If there are any other solicitors present, in addition to the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for Stafford, they are keeping quiet about it. We put up our hands and hang our heads in shame if we dare to confess the hideous offence of being a lawyer.
Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that one of the sad aspects of this Parliament is that it has been a lawyer-bashing Parliament. That is a pity, because publicly funded lawyers do a tremendous amount of work for their clients and are not richly rewarded for it, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was good enough to say. He mentioned incomes of about £18,000 a year. It is because they are so ill remunerated that so few law students now want to enter that branch of work, and those who have been doing it are giving it up, which is regrettable. I trust that measures can be put in hand to encourage people to continue with such work.
The hon. Member for Stafford described himself as a critical friend of the Law Society. I would go further and describe him as a critical friend of the Government. That is a compliment, not an insult.
Mr. Fisher: Do not wreck his career.
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford is capable of looking after his political career inside the House as well as his career outside it. Whichever he chooses, I am sure that he will do very well. He needs neither my plaudits nor the encouragement of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to make a name for himself. I listened with great interest to his remarks today and to what he said in debates when the Access to Justice Act 1999 was in Committee. He made good points it that time, and today, and I congratulate him on what he said.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon is, as I have pointed out, the other solicitor present today. He asked who appoints the lay membership of the new commission. The Minister will give him a definite answer, but my understanding is that the Master of the Rolls makes those appointments. However, I might be wrong. Who am I, as a mere member of the Bar, to say what goes on in the Law Society?
I note the interesting point that the hon. Gentleman made about a general disciplinary body to regulate or control the professions, be those architecture, accountancy or law. I do not want to comment except to say that it would be quite a difficult operation. However, he has raised an important matter.
Mr. Burnett: It is not a matter of controlling the professions, which I would strongly deprecate—I believe in the essential independence of the professions—but of a final recourse, a possibility of independent adjudication for individuals on matters such as conduct and costs.
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for that clarification. No doubt we shall see more of it in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
I am not a spokesman for or member of the Law Society, although I take an interest, both as the shadow Attorney-General and as a lawyer, in its activities and performance. Several hon. Members have given examples of Law Society members failing to meet the high standards expected of them. However, most solicitors, of whom there are about 80,000 practising in England and Wales, do a good job to a high standard. If that were not so, they would not be used. People would find other ways to deal with their legal or other disputes. I hope that we shall not fall into the trap of using one or two bad examples, perfectly properly mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, to criticise all lawyers.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that the profession maintains high standards and that most solicitors—even barristers—are devoted to service and the pursuit of their clients' interests. The problem is that the public do not know that without some independent machinery of regulation and review to tell them what failures and successes have occurred.
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that that is right, but the Government will face the problem of expenditure. My suspicion is that the Government are critical of some of the things that the Law Society has done to improve its performance, but do not want to take on the financial burdens of running the show. I understand from a Law Society briefing that its programme to improve OSS service levels has entailed considerable extra expenditure. It is committed to ensuring that the OSS continues to be properly funded. An additional £10 million was spent between August 1999 and December 2000 on staff and facilities. The OSS's 2001 budget is about £10 million—nearly double the sum allocated in 1999 before the additional resources were agreed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his girlfriend Prudence are keeping a close eye on all public expenditure. The Lord Chancellor's Department is not the highest spending Ministry, but I fear that Prudence would be worried if it took on yet further expenditure. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor's Department on recouping£2 million through charitable ticket sales for tours of the Lord Chancellor's official residence. However, I am not sure that Prudence, let alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would look kindly upon the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that the Department should spend an additional £10 million a year to run the OSS.
I look forward to hearing what the junior Minister has to say in response to the debate.
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate. It has been highly intelligent and interesting, and a number of points of view have been forcibly expressed.

101WH
I must identify the core problem at the outset. Complaints to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors are running at a high rate: approximately one complaint for every five solicitors is made each year. Complaints are supposed to come to the OSS only if the firm's internal complaint system has considered them and has failed to resolve them; sole practitioners are an exception. I endorse the observation that the vast majority of solicitors are diligent and hard-working; in the public sector, they certainly deliver a high quality of service for a modest return. None the less, the clients of many solicitors are unhappy with the service that they receive and that is a significant problem.
It is in the nature of litigation that one side wins and the other loses, but quite often neither side believes that they have lost. It is therefore inevitable that people will sometimes receive less than they expected from the legal process. It is also inevitable that some will feel, rightly or wrongly, that their lawyers have let them down. The core problem that the Law Society must address is the number of complaints. It is important that the way in which services are provided, the expectations that are raised—or not raised—and the nature of what lawyers do should be explained. Everything that lawyers do should have a customer or client focus. Whatever we say about the ability of the legal profession to handle a proper complaints system, the remedy is to deliver a better service and thereby reduce the number of complaints.
I shall attempt to respond in detail to the points raised by hon. Members, but if I do not have the opportunity to do so in the short time left to me, I shall write to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South diligently pursued his constituent's concerns in respect of the conduct of two firms of solicitors. I cannot comment on or intervene in individual cases. The Government's role is to act as the ultimate regulator. We have repeatedly made it clear to the Law Society and the Bar that self-regulation of the legal profession is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege to be operated in the public interest, not in the interests of the people for whom it is regulating. As my hon. Friend said, the people who matter are the clients, not the suppliers.
The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has power to investigate complaints made by clients in respect of their solicitors' conduct or service. It also has power to investigate complaints about the conduct of solicitors, but not complaints about efficiency made by non-clients. There is an inherent problem, which I must explain. I understand the depth of my hon. Friend's concern, but must point out that although lawyers are under obligations to act in accordance with the code of conduct, what the solicitor does to promote one client's interest is frequently adverse to the interests of the other parties to litigation. However, what goes on between a solicitor and a client is confidential.
Solicitors are under an obligation to work within the code of conduct, but can a non-client—another party to litigation—go behind the relationship between a solicitor and a client and question the efficiency, the business decisions or the competence of a solicitor in those circumstances? It is important that, if a non-client loses and subsequently becomes liable for costs, he should pay only the costs that are reasonably and
102WH
properly incurred. However, a core problem arises if the complaints system is used by non-clients to open up the confidence between a solicitor and his client and to question the judgments and the decisions that are made, which, while they may be not good business decisions, were none the less proper in that they were not in breach of the code of conduct.
Mr. Stevenson: I understand what the Minister is saying. but the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman accepted the complaint about company B. You know which solicitor I am talking about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The Minister may know, but I do not.
Mr. Stevenson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The code of conduct protected the firm of solicitors from any further action because it was deemed not to have been in breach of the code.
Mr. Lock: I am reluctant to go into the details of individual cases, but I assure my hon. Friend that the legal services ombudsman's job is primarily to determine whether the OSS has discharged its duties. It is possible, as in the case to which my hon. Friend referred, for the legal services ombudsman to respond to a complaint by telling the OSS that it has not investigated the case properly and in sufficient detail and that it must repeat its investigation and show either that the solicitor was in breach of his duties or that he was not. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, that is precisely what the legal services ombudsman did. The ombudsman held the OSS at fault in respect of the thoroughness of it first investigation, but accepted that the second investigation had been carried out properly and that there was no breach of duty. To go further than that would be to intervene in the client-solicitor relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) expressed his well-known views forcibly and with good humour, as always. He has been a long-standing critic of the Law Society and of self-regulation. I appreciate the points that he makes and I know his views. We have differed on the appropriateness of maintaining self-regulation in respect of complaints, but he knows that the Government's determination to have a proper complaints procedure has led to our taking reserve powers. The exercise of those powers will be considered when the LSO's report is published in July this year. At that point, the question of whether the OSS is meeting the current targets will be primary in our consideration of whether to invoke the reserve powers.
On the statistics quoted, the figure of 6,000 for December 2000 was supposed to have been a combination of the cases that were unresolved with the OSS at that time plus the cases that had been returned from the legal services ombudsman and therefore required further determination. It should therefore have been the sum of all the live cases. If my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby thinks that that is not right, and that the true figure was higher, I invite him to write to me and I shall take the matter up.
I acknowledge that the Law Society failed to meet in December the other targets to which it had signed up in July 1999. It is also true that, although considerable

103WH
investment has been made and the culture of the OSS has improved, since fresh targets were set at the turn of the year, the response to many of the key targets can only be described as disappointing. We are watching closely, and we will have to make difficult decisions.
As far as I am aware, the Law Society has not made strenuous representations to the Government to promote the interests of lawyers working in the areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred and to encourage us to increase capacity. In many of those areas—welfare benefits, debt and so on—the provision of cost-effective services does not necessarily entail services that are provided by a lawyer. It must be remembered that lawyers are not the only people who provide legal services—citizens advice bureaux, law centres and welfare rights units provide excellent services to his and my constituents in respect of we fare benefits, for example. They are often far more cost-effective and efficient than lawyers in dealing with such matters because they deal with them day in, day out. In addition, the issues involved often fall outside the expertise of the high street solicitor.
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we maintain quality, and I am grateful for his comments about that. I appreciate his point about education, but we cannot fund every legal need in every circumstance. The powers in the Access to Justice Act give us, for the first time, the ability to prioritise between different legal needs. That exercise is being conducted locally through community legal service partnerships, which are identifying the primary legal needs each area. Those needs will vary.
Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about citizens advice bureaux. Stoke-on-Trent is lucky to have one of the most effective and powerful CABs in the country. Surely he would agree, however, that even
104WH
the best CAB cannot pursue the detailed legal representation that is necessary in many such cases. Only a firm with a contract—and one with the expertise to meet the quality threshold, which, through the commission, the Government introduced—is likely to pursue the case properly on behalf of a needy constituent.
Mr. Lock: I agree entirely that to ensure quality provision we must maintain the footprint of contracted solicitors and those in the not-for-profit sector.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about lay members of the supervision committee. I understand that they were previously a minority, but the ratio is now approximately 50:50. In answer to the question of who chooses members, I believe that it is the Master of the Rolls. If I am wrong I shall write to him, but I think that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was right about that. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also asked about references to the LSO, and I shall write to him with precise details of case numbers. The LSO is not, of course, within the purview of this debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of lay membership and the reform of the Law Society. One of the proposals that arose at the Law Society's general council meeting was resolution No. 2, which was a proposal to amend the rules of the Law Society to include 5 per cent. lay membership of the council. On 28 February, the council carried the proposal to have only 5 per cent. by only 37 votes to 25, and, lacking a two-thirds majority, therefore removed a lay element from the council of the Law Society. The entrenched view that only solicitors on the council of the Law Society have a proper view—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Renewable Energy (Wales)
12.30 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate elements of the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in the planning consents process for renewable energy in Wales. I shall concentrate on the application of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, having proposed a Bill to amend that Act that is scheduled for Second Reading on Friday, and on a new DTI consultation on a proposed consents process for offshore wind or water driven generating stations in England and Wales.
I shall briefly explain how the planning process in Wales has changed and how the role of the DTI is different for renewable energy in Wales. Since its establishment, the National Assembly has become the primary body responsible for planning in Wales. Local authorities implement planning policy through powers provided in secondary legislation introduced by the National Assembly.
The Assembly is responsible for the overall guidelines. It requires local authorities to formulate unitary development plans that take into account the need to meet our renewables obligations in Wales, which are similar to those in England and to Kyoto and Government targets. The Assembly can call in planning issues and deals with appeals against planning decisions, although in effect they are dealt with by the planning inspectorate.
All those processes take into account representations from third parties as well as those from the developer and the local planning authority. Clearly the Assembly is now the strategic planning authority for Wales: it takes the national view, sets national priorities and guidelines for Wales and lets local authorities deal with purely local matters. It is important to recognise that the planning system in Wales is designed to serve communities in Wales, not protect private interests.
I understand that renewable developments, and especially renewable energy, in Wales are still guided by the planning guidelines of November 1996, which were introduced under the old Welsh Office. Local planning authorities are required to recognise the need for renewable energy and consider what contribution may be made to meeting such demand locally, regionally and nationally.
Wind farms, especially larger scale ones, involve an anomaly. Applications for those with a generating capacity of less than 50 MW are still dealt with by the local planning authority. The Assembly may call in such planning applications if it so wishes, and it seems to want to do so often. However, applications for schemes with a generating capacity in excess of 50 MW are still dealt with under section 36 of the 1989 Act, by the Department of Trade and Industry. That is clearly an anomaly in the planning system in Wales: the National Assembly is usually the strategic authority, but in cases of larger wind-scale developments, it is the DTI. That may be considered a rather unimportant anomaly, which will arise only occasionally. However, it has now arisen in my constituency.
The Cefn Croes application for a wind farm in Ceredigion, near Ponterwyd, is the largest application that has so far been submitted in England and Wales. It
106WH
will have a combined capacity of some 58 MW or 59 MW. I believe that the application will be the first in Wales since devolution to be decided by the Minister at the DTI. I am not sure whether any of a similar size have been decided in England: the fact that it will be the largest in England and Wales suggests not.
An environmental impact assessment has already been made in relation to the planning application in Cefn Croes. Tremendous concern and unhappiness has been expressed locally about the fact that the DTI, not the National Assembly for Wales, will take the final decision on the application. If the local authority were to object to the application, even though it is not the deciding authority, that objection would automatically trigger a public inquiry by the DTI. An objection by another statutory consultee—such as the Countryside Council for Wales—could lead to a public inquiry if the DTI felt that that was fit.
I want the Minister to appreciate the great unease about the application in my constituency. As he might expect, I support such applications, although I reserve my judgment on the planning grounds of this one, because we have not yet seen the full details. Unease exists about the visual intrusion of such a large wind farm, the environmental impact and the need to balance national requirements and local contributions.
Ceredigion is probably one of the most advanced constituencies in terms of renewable energy in England and Wales. It produces more than 50 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources, including the Rheidol hydro-electric scheme. More than 30 per cent. of our energy comes from wind farms. Many would say that we contribute enough already and should not contribute more. I want to see Welsh needs taken into account: if that means that Ceredigion contributes a little more, that is all to the good. However, that contribution should be decided at the Welsh level. The current problem is that the DTI has the decision.
What will be the Minister's response? Will he take into account UK targets and needs, Welsh targets and needs or local targets and needs, which we have met several times over? That is one difficulty with section 36 of the 1989 Act, which my private Member's Bill would amend. I shall return to that matter, but I want to move on to the proposed consultation—
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman represents one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, and he right to say that Ceredigion already contributes more than its fair share in terms of renewable energy. Is not the important point that we listen carefully to the interests of local people? Clearly, wind power has an enormous contribution to make to renewable energy. However, the environmental impact of physical intrusion, environmental damage, noise and flicker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away. He is making a speech, not an intervention. He should bring it to an end quickly.
Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The local people should have a greater say in the matter, but the environment must come first as far as physical intrusion is concern ed.
Mr. Thomas: I agree substantially with the hon. Gentleman, but the issue of visual intrusion is

107WH
subjective. The environmental impact, however, is of utmost importance, as are the environmental benefits of the proposal. That is the difficult balancing act that must be performed. I would prefer the decision to be taken at the Welsh level by the National Assembly, in which the hon. Gentleman's party has an influence, not by the DTI in Westminster. That is the crucial point of my argument.
On the proposed consultation, which the DTI has produced for future offshore wind or water driven electricity stations in England and Wales, the surprising aspect of the proposal is that the DTI wants to go further. It is not content to decide, under section 36, on applications for projects of more than 50 MW. It now wants to decide on applications for projects in Wales of more than 1 MW. It would therefore be even more involved in the renewable energy debate in Wales.
The statement in the consultation paper is bold and bald—that a new process will be introduced in spring 2001 in line with the Government's aim of stimulating early development of a significant capacity in offshore wind farms. I do not know whether the Minister has an announcement to make on the matter. Rumours are rife that the first of those offshore wind farm developments will be announced shortly. Can to Minister comment on whether that development will be in Wales?
The fact that the consultation purports to include the National Assembly for Wales is a joke. It has yet to discuss the matter and the only consultation for Wales is a covering letter to the DTI's consultation. There has been a welcome move by the DTI to publish the consultation paper in Welsh as well as English, which acknowledges that aspect.
The DTI proposes to make all offshore wind and water powered generation subject to section 36 consents. Overall, the idea behind that proposal is very acceptable. There are two European directives that must be met when addressing renewable needs in Wales, and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to that obliquely. One directive is about environmental impact assessments and the other is the habitats directive. Currently, the proposals are not met fully by the consents process. I can see why that is the case.
However, there is an alternative way to meet the obligations, which does not involve a devolution clawback. As the Minister is a strong supporter of devolution, I hope that he will listen to my arguments and think again about his Deparment's proposals. Currently, applications of at least 50 MW must be decided under section 36. The proposal is that all applications of at least 1 MW will be decided by the DTI. How will the National Assembly for Wales meet Wales's strategic needs?
It is important to remember that the matter will not change the number of applications, or the number of hoops that developers must go through. The paper makes it clear that the system does not change the number of separate consents that art required. Instead, it should clarify matters with a developer at an earlier stage in the process, and make that process more streamlined and transparent. That is wonderful for civil servants and represents a wonderful piece of administrative tidying up, but it does not make the process in Wales more democratic If Cefn Croes is anything to go by, more local planning authorities in
108WH
Wales are likely to feel even more aggrieved that decisions have been taken away from Wales. They will appeal to the DTI for further public inquiries, so the Minister may have to deal with several dozen inquiries.
I do not know whether the Minister's Department was one of those that found the Wales Office to be only fair in its dealings between Westminster and Cardiff. I do not know whether that is a reason why his civil servants wished to take the power and tidy up the administration of the matters, and whether there is a lack of trust about potential actions of the National Assembly. I ask the Minister to reject his Department's proposals. Although there is not a written protocol between the Wales Office and Government Departments, we are waiting for a better understanding of how there will be legislative changes between Westminster and Cardiff.
The proposal document makes no mention of how a local planning authority will oppose the consents. Will it trigger a public inquiry, and how will the DTI deal with such inquiries?
A further worrying aspect of the proposals is the enticement in the document for developers to deal directly with the DTI about the offshore wind farm and thus bypass what I hoped would be a National Assembly responsibility. However, the onshore aspects of the offshore development, such as an onshore station that takes electricity from an offshore generator, would also bypass a local authority. The consultation document suggests:
"The developer might however choose to seek deemed planning permission for the sub-station or other onshore development from DTI via section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, at the same time as applying for consent under section 36…rather than submitting a separate application directly to the local planning authority."
It is not clear whether that would also be true in Wales because much of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, or whether we are seeing one or two devolution clawbacks. I am worried that there has been too much administrative tidying up for the convenience of civil servants, and insufficient democratic accountability for the convenience and transparency of local decision making.
I shall give the Minister an alternative arrangement that meets his Department's objectives and would allow the National Assembly for Wales to develop its full potential as the strategic planning body in Wales and have the overview of renewable energy in Wales. First, we should rip up the document. Secondly, section 36 consents must be given over to the National Assembly for Wales to allow the hon. Gentleman to wash his hands of the need to decide the larger generating station consents at Whitehall level. As the National Assembly is already dealing with the habitats directive and European impact assessment directives through its secondary legislation in other contexts, surely it can deal with them in the context of large scale and offshore developments, too. There would, of course, need to be strong liaison between the Department and the Assembly. However, the document is not the way forward.
In my constituency, as well as the Cefn Croes applications, there are two special conservation areas to which the habitats directive applies offshore from

109WH
Ceredigion. One is Cardigan bay. The other is the special area of conservation known as Penllyn ar Sarnau, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). It reaches down to the northern part of my constituency. Cardigan bay is a special area and any offshore developments in that area may be opposed in a similar way that oil exploration has been opposed in the past. If any development is to happen in that area, I want it to be decided at a Welsh level as much as possible, not by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The Minister has been one of the most ardent advocates of devolution in Wales and many of us are grateful for the way in which he has taken his party forward for devolution. He is the last person who would behave like a colonial governor in Wales, deciding matters for Wales from the Department of Trade and Industry. The recent overnight decision by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to allow the planting of three genetically modified crop sites in Wales with no consultation with Members of the National Assembly, no consultation with local Members of Parliament and no consultation with spokespeople in this House who have responsibility for their parties' environmental portfolios—I include myself in that group—has put in disarray the National Assembly's proposals for a GM-free environment in Wales. That is what happens when London decides such issues. I am sure that the Minister does not want to be party to such decision making. I invite him to reject the document and to propose a new set of planning consents that works with the National Assembly and will give more power to the National Assembly rather than taking power away from it.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate and welcome his interest and expertise in renewable energy, which is welcome in the House. As we tackle climate change, that is of crucial importance. I am aware that he tabled a private Member's Bill on 28 March proposing that the Electricity Act 1989 be amended, so that the National Assembly for Wales can handle the granting of section 36 consents for power stations in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman has raised directly with the Prime Minister his worry about the proposed onshore wind farm in his constituency at Cefn Croes. I agree that Cardigan bay is beautiful. If Neath had a bay of equivalent beauty, I might be a rival. It is unquestionably beautiful and no one would want to see it harmed or injured. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a strong believer in devolution. By background and temperament, no one in the House is less likely to behave as a colonial governor than I. The last such person to do so was the current Leader of the Opposition and it is good that he is no longer in that position.
110WH
I am an enthusiast for renewable energy, Mr. Winterton, as is the Prime Minister whose recent—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am fortunate now to have the title of Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hain: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a very worthy title for you, in particular.
The Prime Minister is also an enthusiast for renewable energy. His recent speech covered the better use of energy by business, the development of low carbon technologies, our renewables obligation—which is a powerful driver—programmes to cut emissions in the transport sector and the promotion of much greater energy efficiency in the domestic sector. The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked about imminent announcements. I am pleased to inform the House that we expect the Crown Estate Commissioners to announce the results of the first offshore wind farm site pre-qualification round tomorrow. They will give the names of wind farm developers who have successfully obtained site leases on the sea bed for the development of offshore wind farms right around Britain, including Wales. That marks a major step forward for renewables, and is very important news. The response to the Crown Estate's competition for site leases has been very positive. Tomorrow's announcement will represent a significant addition to our renewables capacity. Developers are responding to the Government's green signal, which I waist to make loud and clear.
Planning policy for England and Wales gives local planning authorities guidance on a range of issues that affect the siting of all renewable energy projects. The key issue for local authorities, when assessing applications for planning permission—including all the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—is to take account of renewable energy projects' impact on the local environment and their wider contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Last year, the Government announced a more strategic approach to planning for renewable energy in England, from regional level downwards. Under that, regions are to carry out, or update, assessments for renewables, from which regional targets for renewables generation can be agreed. The point of such studies is to achieve local consensus on the siting of future renewable energy projects. No specific separate targets have yet been drafted for Wales, but an assessment of the potential for renewable energy developments in Wales has been undertaken. That report is currently being finalised. Once studies are complete, the Department will publish a British overview, taking into account the assumptions made in individual studies.
To make successful progress, we need to get local stakeholders signed up and make a realistic assessment of the capacity for each part of Britain, including Wales, to generate electricity from renewable sources instead of simply imposing the United Kingdom target at regional level—or, in the case of Wales, at national level. I favour a bottom-up approach, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome. The recent announcement on locational flexibility for the non-fossil fuel obligation will also free up projects that have failed to secure planning consent for the sites in their original NFFO applications. That will boost renewables further.

111WH
We must all work together. The hon. Gentleman put his points in a rather simplistic fashion, if I may say so. Any decision, on any location, taken by the local planning authority, the National Assembly for Wales, or the Department of Trade and Industry will take account of all relevant factors. Those will vary in each case, but will include Government policy, or, in Wales, Assembly guidance, together with published planning guidance, covering not only energy, but the countryside, nature conservation, local plans, environmental assessments and the views expressed on an application. There is no prospect, especially under the current Minister, of the interests of Wales, or any part of Wales, being ignored. There will be full loca1 consultation and consultation with the Assembly.
I am aware of the application concerning Cefn Croes, but because of the quasi-judicial role of DTI Ministers in determining the application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on its merits or drawbacks. I understand that it has aroused strong feelings, but opinion is divided. We have received more than 200 written objections, but also more than 80 letters of support. We are currently awaiting the views of the local planning authority, Ceredig on county council, the Ministry of Defence—it is a tactical training area—and the National Assembly for Wales. No decision will be made until those have been taken into account. Until the Secretary of State receives that advice, he cannot take a decision on the application or call a public inquiry.
When considering applications for power stations over 50 MW, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, under section 36 of the 1989 Act, examines proposals on a case-by-case basis, taking a decision on the merits of each. He takes into account environmental impact and the views of the local community, local planning authority, individuals and local MPs. He considers the advice of statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency, the relevant countryside and nature conservation bodies, heritage bodies and, in the case of Wales, the National Assembly for Wales. Clearly, he considers the views of the developer and of any party who writes to him about the application.
In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, if the local planning authority objects to an application, the Secretary of State is obliged to arrange a public inquiry. Even if the local authority does not object, the Secretary of State has the discretionary power to hold a public inquiry if deemed appropriate in the light of any other objections and/or any other material considerations particular to the case.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a comprehensive process in which the local planning authority has a key role to play—from its familiarity with the local environment to its ability to object and thereby force a public inquiry—and through which the public can have their say. The hon. Gentleman referred to our recently launched consultation exercise on the consents process for offshore wind farms. It proposed that, instead of the current fragmented system, the DTI act as a one-stop shop, receiving, and co-ordinating the administration of, proposals for offshore wind farms in England and Wales. It also proposed that the DTI become, in effect, the planning authority for smaller offshore wind
112WH
farms—those at or below 50 MW—given that, in general, the local planning regime does not extend offshore.
However, with my specific encouragement the National Assembly for Wales is conducting its own consultation on the proposal, including the translation into Welsh to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which will ensure that Welsh interests are taken fully into account. The Assembly will also seek views on the role that it might play in the consents process for applications in Welsh territorial waters. Responses are sought by 23 April, and I shall consider carefully all the views expressed, including those of the hon. Gentleman should he wish to write to me.
Reflecting the combined electricity grid and market in England and Wales, the DTI currently determines any planning application for a power station of more than 50 MW. That is not an anomaly. There is an integrated market for electricity and distribution across England and Wales, and Wales benefits from that. If there were some form of Offa's dyke in terms of electricity supply, Wales would be very vulnerable. I hope that all hon. Members can see the clear advantages of a single planning authority that allows strategic decisions to be taken across the entire electricity market. One cannot consider electricity generation, supply and distribution in a nationalistic way—if I may put that to the hon. Gentleman—but I will listen carefully to any views expressed by the Assembly. In the meantime, I am determined to work closely with it. I have been in touch with its Environment Minister, Sue Essex, about the specific issue of offshore wind farm consents, and I have listened to her arguments about process and procedure, to which I am personally sympathetic.
The way to move forward together successfully was clearly demonstrated during the stricter consents policy. Despite a general presumption against further gas-fired power stations, recognition was given to the particular circumstances surrounding two projects in Wales: Baglan energy park in south Wales and Rhosgoch in Anglesey. The decision on Baglan bay recognised the importance of General Electric's advanced gas-fired power station technology, and the difficult employment circumstances in the Neath-Port Talbot area. The decision on Rhosgoch recognised both an energy policy benefit and the particular circumstances prevailing in Anglesey.
The Government are therefore listening to Wales, and Wales has benefited. We will continue to work closely with the Assembly on applications for wind farms in Wales, whether onshore or offshore. I should point out, however, that that is a general statement and does not refer to any application or to many of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. As a fellow enthusiast for renewables, I am sure that he will agree with me on that point.
There is another contagious disease spreading throughout Britain at the moment: an attitude of nimbyism towards applications for offshore, onshore or almost any kind of renewable generation in one's own back yard. People are in favour of clean energy and green energy, and are enormously in favour of renewables, but seem to have a blind spot when such proposals come anywhere near them. People in Wales and elsewhere have to confront that stark truth. Most people do not want a nuclear power station in their back

113WH
yard and are not enthusiastic about having coal-fired or gas-fired generators there either. The alternative is renewable energy. It is important to support wind farms in Wales and elsewhere—although not on the basis that they can spread anywhere that they choose, with every development given the green light. We intend to accelerate the development of renewables.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Entry Applications
1pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate about a long-standing injustice that can and should be rectified by a Government who are committed to social justice and the family.
My concern is with children who were refused permission to join their parents settled in the United Kingdom because visa officer decided that they were not "related as claimed". That was assessed through detailed questioning and asking for documents that did not exist in the Syl eti villages that most of the children came from. Many of the decisions were proved to be wrong. In the early 1980s, when I was director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, appeals were successful in some 30 per cent. of cases. Others did not win, yet could 1ater prove through DNA tests, which were not invented until the 1980s, that they definitely were related as claimed. By then, the children were over 18 and did not fit into the immigration rules by which they could join their parents, so they have remained separated ever since, and are still being refused after losing appeals.
That cannot be right. The children had a right to be here. The British authorities made a mistake, and the children have been refused any redress for that mistake. The courts decided, in a case called Miah and Askar, that it was not ant error, but a lack of evidence, so there is no redress. Anyone who is not a lawyer, pace the Minister, can see that that is wrong. People were refused on a basis that has been proved to be wrong. They suffered an injustice that the Government have the power to rectify, even decades later. The injustice continues for many of the families. There are elderly people here who need their children to care for them in old age, yet they are kept out and cannot even visit their parents because they expressed an intention to settle in the past. Often, those elderly parents are too poorly to travel to them on t le subcontinent.
When the Labour party was in opposition, we said that we would deal with this injustice. In 1992, the spokesman on immigration, who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security, said:
"If an error is made by the Home Office and an applicant was denied his or her right to come to the UK through a relationship, then if a DNA test subsequently proved that the claim was well founded then that claim will be accepted."
I urge that we now honour that commitment.
Not all the people who applied and were wrongly refused will still want to come here. Some have formed their own families by marrying and having children or have work commitments in the country where they live and are well settled there. But others have not. They continue to apply and to be refused, and are caught in a state of limbo without any way of sorting out their lives.
The biggest barrier to making the right decision on this matter is the sense that we might be giving an open-ended commitment on future immigration that would create significant numbers of applicants. A letter from the Home Secretary contained the claim that the figure could be between 20,000 and 40,000. I venture to suggest that that number is ludicrous, because it appears to represent every single child from Bangladesh who was ever refused. No one has ever suggested that all the refusals were wrong.

115WH
Why do I focus on Bangladesh? I do so because the problem is largely confined to that country. No one that I can find knows of anyone who suffers from this injustice and comes from any other country. I should like to know whether the Minister is aware of any other cases, and if he is, whether there are more than 15 or 20. There were some wrong refusals of that kind in Pakistan, but those kept out have generally made their lives in Pakistan, or have come to the UK through the tradition of cousin marriages in the Pakistani community.
I pay tribute to the justice for over-aged applicants campaign. It has not won anything, but it has kept going for 20 years. It should be admired for its dogged persistence on behalf of victims of that injustice. It believes that less than 1,000 people would qualify. Its evidence is that when the Conservative Government announced a limited concession in 1989—four years after DNA testing was invented—only 550 people applied, of which 115 were successful. More recently, the Government ran a big publicity campaign in the UK Bangladeshi community that urged people affected to contact them. Only 100 such people did so, and many of those had applied and been refused under the 1989 concession.
Ten years on, it is unlikely that people who tried then would do so now. It would mean uprooting themselves, and any new family that they have formed overseas, to join parents from which they were wrongly kept apart. It is even less likely that anyone who had not tried to access his or her rights in the 15 years since the invention of DNA testing would consider migrating. Under current immigration laws, applicants who have married in the meantime would have to show that they could support and accommodate their spouse and children without recourse to public funds. In my view, it would be wrong in terms of the commitment and numbers to include them in an estimate of the consequence of introducing a fair and just policy.
I urge the Home Office to announce a new and final concession that would apply to people who were refused as children on relationship grounds, who still have a parent settled in the UK and who have proved their relationship through DNA testing. The first step should be to provide an opportunity for them to register their case within a given period. which would follow a long tradition within immigration law. Indeed, there is a similar requirement in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The burden of proof of being the relevant individual and of having applied in the past should be on the applicant, but records of applications at the British high commission or the Home Office should be conclusive, as should original documents and authorised DNA tests in the possession of applicants.
If the Home Office believes that numbers are an issue, it would be possible to impose a quota on the number of people allowed entry. It has apparently been argued that there is no precedent for a quota in British migration law. As the Minister and I know from working together in the early 1980s, that is not true. In those years there was—indeed, there still is—a quota for United Kingdom passport holders, who ate British nationals who are not British citizens. Since the early 1970s, there has been a national quota of 5,000 per year that is not fully used. In 1999, only 330 of that quota were admitted for settlement, so there is plenty of space. If, as expected,
116WH
only a few hundred people in the category that I am discussing apply, their applications could be dealt with in a shorter period.
Such a change would not greatly increase the administrative work to be done in high commissions. Dhaka keeps detailed records and checks them in relation to visitors and other applicants to see whether people have family who have come here in the past. Its historical records are extensive and it dealt with 18,000 visa applications in 1999, so a cohort of such people would not add substantially to the work load.
Rectifying the injustice is the right thing to do. Some people were wrongly refused entry due to the type of questioning and the inappropriate standard of evidence demanded, so we should now carry out the commitment that we made in the past to allow their evidence to be used. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Department is not aware of a great number of cases from countries other than Bangladesh. If he can, I hope that he will agree to meet me and other hon. Members to discuss how we might create a system that would have a chance of dealing with the injustice, rather than taking the ostrich view—burying our heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away. As policymakers, we may believe that the problem is disappearing, but for the families who are permanently kept apart by this unfair rule, it will not go away. We have a duty to those families; we made a commitment to them in 1972 and now is the time to honour it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), I advise the Chamber that she has sought my permission, that of the initiator of the debate and that of the Minister to participate in our half-hour Adjournment debate.
1.11 pm
Ms Oona King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing a debate on an issue that I have raised continuously since I was elected. Although, according to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I represent the most deprived area in Britain, and have seen many cases of injustice, few have seemed as grave as the ones under discussion. They include the cases of young teenage boys and girls who were refused entry clearance to join their families because the entry clearance officers in Dhaka, New Delhi or Islamabad were not satisfied that they were "related as claimed." That injustice is bad enough, but it was compounded by the failure to correct it once proof of the children's identity was available. The entry clearance officers made a mistake. We all make mistakes, but few have consequences as grave as that.
The advent of DNA testing in 1987 gave us the opportunity to rectify such mistakes, and enabled those under 18 to submit successful applications for entry clearance to join their families in the UK. For others, however, the mistake has ruined their lives and they have had no opportunity to see it rectified. Many of those wrongly refused in the 1970s were teenagers, so by 1987 they were in their mid or late 20s and therefore could not benefit from the new DNA tests because they were no longer dependants. Why were they no longer dependants? Because the Home Office had taken 20 years to recognise their claim.

117WH
Following a public campaign, the Home Secretary introduced a concession to the immigration rules in June 1989, which allowed those who had had DNA tests proving that they were "related as claimed" to enter the UK if they could show compelling and compassionate circumstances. That was welcome because it allowed a small number of children to be reunited with their families.
Many more families remain divided and I would like to give the Minister some examples in my constituency. Joytun Bibi is a mother who has seen her son, Nizam Uddin, three times in 24 years. Mehrun Nessa has seen her son, Iqbal Hussain, twice in 17 years. Shoznoo Bibi has seen her son, Ataur Rahman, four times in 20 years. Rois Miah has seen his sons, Aftab and Moklis, only on half a dozen occasions since they were refused entry clearance in 1972. Many of those mothers and fathers are now elderly and frail. For example, Mehrun has arthritis and recently suffered a stroke that left her unable to walk; she is too ill to travel, and knows that unless the Home Office reconsiders, she will never see her son again.
I am not a parent, but the Minister is, and it should not require too much imagination—even for people who are not parents—to understand the desperate sorrow and anguish that this woman must be suffering.
The Home Secretary met the justice for over-aged children campaign, of which I am the chair, in November 1998. I was grateful that my right hon. Friend carefully considered the issues that we raised, but I was disappointed that his final decision was not to relax the concession. He said that he was concerned about the possibility of large numbers of potential reapplicants that might arise under a relaxed concession. I was initially quoted a figure of 60,000. If that were true, the Home Secretary would have been right to be concerned, but I can assure the Minister that that figure is mythical. I am not sure where it came from, but we cannot accept it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough went into the figures in detail, so I shall not repeat them. However, a further indication of the actual numbers can be gleaned from the fact that in 1991 only 550 cases had been considered under the concession, of which only 115 were conceded. The Home Office argues that there might be many thousands more because only those eligible would have applied, but that is not borne out because 80 per cent. of those who applied under the concession were rejected. More important, it is not borne out by anyone with even a passing knowledge of people who may have spent the last 20 years separated from their child. Those parents were overjoyed when they first heard about the concession, especially regarding compelling and compassionate circumstances. What could be more compelling and compassionate than being wrongly separated from one's child or parents by an arbitrary decision that one is "not related as claimed"? The numbers involved are minimal and would certainly be fewer than those rightly benefiting from other concessions introduced by the Government.
The 1989 Commission for Racial Equality report on immigration control and procedures records that 90 per cent. of those refused on the grounds of not being
118WH
related as claimed were subsequently able to establish their relationship through DNA testing. I cannot believe that the British Government and Home Office could hide behind a mistake when it is now possible to put it right. So much has been put right in the immigration service and it is right to congratulate the Government on achieving that. Nowhere is the new professionalism in the immigration service more evident than at the British high commission in Dhaka. With the odd exception, arbitrary refusal is a thing of the past.
The campaign acknowledges that an over-aged reapplicant will have to show how he or she will be maintained in UK accommodation without recourse to public funds. That is right and proper, but I sincerely and genuinely urge the Minister to examine the proposals outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and supported by myself. I give the last word to my constituent, Joytun Bibi, who said:
"They made me make a choice between my eldest son, and the rest of my family… The immigration officers told me that Nizam wasn't mine, and even when I proved that he was they still wouldn't let him in. Not a single day goes by when I don't think of Nizam… Please let Nizam and the others in and let all us mothers be reunited with the children we were forced to leave behind."
1.19 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been an important debate, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) have made significant contributions based on their constituency experience. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, considerable professional experience of these issues at the highest level is also involved.
The right to family life is guaranteed by article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which has been incorporated into United Kingdom law in the Human Rights Act 1998 introduced by this Government.
It is always important to recognise the significance and value of family life and the undoubted wrench that patterns of migration and settlement can involve when parents are separated from their children for however short a time. It has long been the thrust of our policy in respecting family life and the rights incorporated in the convention to seek to reunite families where relatives are settled here. In the vast majority of cases "family member" is held to mean spouses and the children of persons settled here, although in exceptional circumstances the definition can be extended to other dependent relatives.
The closeness of the connection by blood and the level of dependency must be the determining factors. Dependency will vary in accordance with age when there is a relationship between a parent and child. There must be a cut-off point. the cut-off point that we have arrived at in our law is 18, when childhood is said to end and adulthood to begin. Our immigration law and rules reflect that. Not only must they have enshrined within them the proper strictures of the convention, but they must be capable of being defined in such a way as to demonstrate the essential characteristics of good law: clarity and finality.

119WH
Those considerations must be in the forefront of the minds of those who have a responsibility, as we do in the House, to legislate, whether in primary or secondary legislation. It is important that we get the balance right in immigration law. At the heart of our approach is the requirement of both fairness and firmness. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in responding to representations of the sort that we have heard in Westminster Hall today, must always bear in mind the need for that balance.
Ms Oona King: Given that the Home Secretary previously said that he was not able to reconsider the matter because of the numbers involved would my right hon. Friend agree to a meeting with the MPs concerned if we can show that these numbers have been substantially exaggerated?
Mr. Boateng: I am coming to that in my own inimitable way. It may not be as fast as my hon. Friend would wish. I will get there.
The balance is one that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has striven in this area, as in every other area, to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough was good enough to pay tribute to the way in which the Government have sought to get the balance right. That has been in no small measure due to the determination of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to do so and the diligence of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). They ensured that the improvement at the point of application in the subcontinent, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referred, was implemented.
A forceful case has been made over the years by the campaign for justice for over-aged children, and the stories outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow get to the heart of the
120WH
importance family relationships. I can understand the passion and commitment that inspires those who started the campaign. We are always prepared to give such campaigns a fair hearing in trying to get the balance right.
An issue has arisen about the accuracy of the estimates that were made at a meeting between the Home Secretary and members of the campaign. We are ready at any time to receive representations to help us to estimate the scale of the problem and to determine how many might want to avail themselves of a concession such as that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough. She put much thought into its development and the framework within which it might be contained. I undertake carefully to consider her suggestion and to examine the statistics and test them against our estimates; we shall thus arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the best available evidence.
We are determined to get this important issue right. A concession has been made in the past; it is not without significance that in the last year no one made use of it, which raises a number of issues about the demand, or potential demand for any concession.
We need to get things right and to examine the evidence. My hon. Friend took great care in fashioning her proposal, and I give her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow an undertaking to give it the consideration that it is due. At the end of the day, it will be a matter of finality and of clarity—two vital aspects of the law in this, as in every other matter—and of getting the balance right. We will be informed by our respect for family life, our convention responsibilities and the need for firm but fair immigration law.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his reply. We can now move on a few seconds early to the last debate in Westminster Hall today.

Local Government Finance (Harborough)
1.29 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank the Speaker for granting the debate, which is on an important subject for my constituents, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), for coming to Westminster Hall to respond on behalf of the Government. Local government finance is an intensely complicated subject, and many Ministers have spent years in her Department and its predecessors without ever reaching a full understanding of it. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not in that category, but let me tell her something about the two local authorities in Harborough and explain why the debate is so important.
There are two local authorities in my constituency, excluding Leicestershire county council. Oadby and Wigston borough council is geographically small but has an electorate of about 40,000 and, obviously, a larger population. It covers the part of south-east Leicestershire that is closest to the city of Leicester, and consists of Oadby, a settlement of medieval origins, and South Wigston, which grew with the expansion of the canals and railways during the 19th century and housed the regimental headquarters of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment, the Tigers. Between those two places are Wigston Magna and Wigston Fields, which are also settlements of some antiquity and are on the routes of the old sheep and cattle droves to Leicester livestock market, which is now a multiscreen cinema and supermarket complex. I suppose that, nowadays, that is called progress.
The borough is now mostly residential but there are some factories, which are mostly, although not exclusively, related to food preparation, light engineering and textiles. We have in the borough Leicester race course, as well as the Leicester university botanical gardens and many student halls of residence. There are also a few farms.
Harborough district council covers the largest area of any Leicestershire district council—the whole of south and east Leicestershire—and has a population somewhat larger than that of the borough. Based on the ancient town of Market Harborough, it is made up of some of the finest grazing land in the country and, so far, it is thankfully free of foot and mouth, although it is designated as an at risk area because of cases confirmed to our north, south and west. It contains many small villages, rural settlements and farms, and rolling countryside of equal beauty to the fells and dales of the north. If I may say so, it is an undiscovered gem.
We are a largely contented but not complacent part of the world, with low unemployment, good schools and access to fine hospitals. The Government cannot claim credit for any of that—that position has obtained for many years. However, my two local authorities share an ever-increasing burden of Government-imposed targets and strategies, which are eating into their small revenue budgets, taking up and extending the already full working day of local government officers, and diminishing the level of public service that the dedicated and hard-working officers want and are able to provide to my constituents. Oadby and Wigston council has a general revenue fund budget for 2001–02 of £4,978,000,
122WH
and Harborough council's net revenue budget is £6.3 million. In financial terms, both are small authorities.
We were not at all pleased when, in 1999, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions subtracted nearly 1,000 citizens from the population of Oadby and Wigston, with a consequent reduction in its standard spending assessment, a loss of about £65,000 in revenue, a reduction in service provision and an increase in council tax.
I refer the Minister to a letter that was written by the director of resources, Alan White, to Mr. Lambirth of her Department on 21 January 2001, in which he outlines some problems that arose as a result of that arbitrary subtraction of population. He wrote:
"The loss of Aggregate External Finance resulting from this population factor is equivalent to a Council Tax increase of around 3.5 per cent. The problem this creates is illustrated by considering the marginal cash increase of £14,000 in AEF against the costs of best value audit and inspection which alone will add between £40,000 and £50.000 to the Council's budget … In considering the council's ability to manage its financial resources against its service costs it is important to note that all our major services are already externalised, with only the Highways DLO (which is expected to make a profit) provided in-house."
He mentioned the external contracts for grounds maintenance, leisure centre and swimming pool management, refuse collection and street cleansing, which are now a11 privatised. He reminded the Department that that did not leave much room for manoeuvre on the costs of those services, although they were trying to renegotiate in some areas. He went on to say:
"Additionally the now somewhat mixed blessing of being one of the handful of Councils to win a Millennium fund bid, will result in the revenue costs of the project which come on stream in 2000/01 adding a Council Tax equivalent of 2.3 per cent. to the budget. We will also suffer from the exhaustion of the Collection Fund surplus (Council Tax increase equivalent 3.3 per cent.) an issue we are pleased to see is recognised in your letter.
This all adds up to a situation where even after elimination of avoidable growth, significant real terms pruning of existing expenditure and an unrepeatable subvention from balances we will struggle to achieve a Council Tax increase below 10 per cent.—it should really be double this figure."
Mr. White said that the council was non-confrontational and was not deliberately ignoring the content of advice from the Department. He said:
"Indeed it may well be that the relatively small percentage rise in budget requirement (around 4 per cent.) which the measures outlined in the previous paragraph will achieve will be sufficient to convince the Secretary of State of our good intent, but we do have a problem. We intend to use the next twelve months to try to produce strategies designed to address the underlying under-funding of our budget but in the meantime would be bitterly disappointed not to receive the sympathetic understanding of the Secretary of State. More tangible help relating to the nonsense of our population estimate would be even more gratefully received."
There appears to be a somewhat sanguine acceptance at the DETR that there are winners and losers in the game of local government finance, but it pays scant regard to the practical consequences, which can be quite dramatic for small authorities. For Oadby and Wigston, £65,000 is a significant sum. It is not acceptable to visit those consequences on the council without giving it a chance to plan in advance how best to accommodate the loss.

123WH
It gets worse. Best value is no doubt a wonderful concept. To be fair to the Government and so as not to misrepresent my local authorities' concerns, I must point out that both Harborough and Oadby and Wigston have been prepared to accept that there is room for improvement in the administration and delivery of public services by local councils. They were by no means antipathetic to the introduction of the best value scheme. The chief executive of Harborough, Mr. Michael Wilson, tells me that his authority has
"embraced the Modernisation Agenda will enthusiasm"
and that it believes that many of the initiatives set out in it are well focused and deserve adequate funding to ensure their effective implementation. Harborough council has been resourceful and innovative in coming to grips with them, especially in partnership with other small authorities in the Welland partnership and with the assistance of Deloitte & Touche. It is, for example, reviewing the asset base with a view to enhancing income generation. I assume that that is accountancy-speak for car parking charges in rura1 market towns or charging 50p to spend a penny—increased charges for use of public lavatories. However, 1egislative demands are being made of Harborough council without adequate resources being made available.
Best value has, however, become a monster, entailing more bureaucracy and escalating costs. The audit cost for Oadby and Wigston in 1998–99 was only £39,000. It will be £60,000 more in 2001–02. Thanks to best value, the total may be as high as £118,000 For Harborough, the total cost of the auditing exercise will be £65,000 for the basic audit, between £15,000 and £20,000 for the best value audit. Oadby and Wigston's director of resources estimates that its overall cost—Which includes the effort put in by existing staff who are diverting productive time to this increasingly process-driven system—must be about £160,000 a year.
The practical benefits are minimal, and there is a feeling that officers are being required by central Government to spend their time ticking boxes on forms instead of doing the job that they came into local government to do. There is a team of three in Oadby and Wigston trying to cope with best value, and it has a 1.5 in thick lever arch file of instructions from the Government on how to apply it. Now, as though things were not difficult enough, the best value unit has poached one of the borough's assistant directors to go and work for it—no doubt on a better salary and for a shorter working week.
Best value is in danger of becoming, if it has not reached that stage already, a missed opportunity of major proportions and a serious waste of local government resources and taxpayers' money. The resources now absorbed by writing about work, rather than doing it, cannot be justified. The volume of resources wasted on strategy production is now so great that it impacts on the levels of service that the borough can provide.
Everyone believes in sensible business planning, but smaller councils such as Oadby and Wigston borough council and Harborough district council are able to comprehend entire areas of activity without great difficulty, and without the complex written plans that authorities such as Birmingham or Manchester might
124WH
require. Therefore, the "one size fits all" policy is counter-productive. The Government appear to believe that strategies are tangible achievements, whereas most sensible people realise that that is not the case.
The Government seem to be more concerned about control than production—I hope that I will not be accused of cynicism for saying that. Oadby and Wigston borough council is required to produce a range of strategies and implement many new regimes: a contaminated land strategy; a local Agenda 21 strategy; an air quality strategy; an asset management plan; a capital strategy; a crime and disorder disruption strategy that has spawned six action groups; resource accounting for housing; best value accounting; a community plan; a benefits verification framework; a strategy for e-government; a policy and action plan under race relations legislation; new political arrangements that the Government's reforms of local government require; local strategies based on local management needs; performance indicators; policies under the Human Rights Act; and enormous and costly, and not very welcome or well attended, areas of consultation.
The auditing of local government is no longer intended merely to ensure probity or value for money. Now, auditors and inspectors often arrive at a local authority armed with a Government agenda to reduce its funding, or to pillory its performance. The housing or council tax benefit systems provide a good example of that. The auditors are, in effect, instructed by the Department of Social Security. They decide how much work is required, and the authority has to pay whatever they charge. That has resulted in massive costs for small authorities such as those in my constituency. The auditors seek to reduce the council's grant claim by uncovering technical failures or omissions. The benefit schemes are now so complex that they cannot be perfectly administered, and innocent technical errors by clerical workers can result in massive financial penalties. Fortunately, that has not yet happened to either of the two authorities in my constituency, but it could easily occur. Bridgnorth district council has lost £2 million as a result of such clerical mistakes, and many others have also lost large sums. The beneficiaries of that are the Government, rather than my constituents.
The benefit fraud inspectorate has yet to visit Oadby and Wigston, but the director of resources predicts that, when it does pay a visit, it will issue a critical report, despite the fact that his council aggressively pursues and prosecutes fraud offences. His bleak prediction is based on his observation that the inspectorate never issues a good, or even an encouraging, report. The sclerotic effect of that hinders not only the officers of the council, but the work of the councillors themselves, and I will shortly explain why that is the case.
I have in my possession an internal report on staffing at Oadby and Wigston council. It lists the staffing consequences of several of the targets and strategies that have been imposed on the council by the Government. Oadby and Wigston borough council and Harborough district council do not have any spare staff. Therefore, many officers, such as housing officers, are having to work outside the areas of their immediate responsibility, and the chief executives of both authorities are doing the work of six people.

125WH
The increasing burdens are having a terrible effect on staff morale in both authorities. In Oadby and Wigston, responsibility for the crime and disorder reduction strategy has been divided between the chief executive, the assistant chief executive and the community safety officer, who was appointed to Oadby and Wigston before the new legislation was introduced, and who already works half the time for Harborough. The chief executive, Mrs. Ruth Hyde, chairs two of the six action groups arising from the strategy. The work is time-intensive, as she must implement the decisions of all of the multi-agency groups that are involved. The work of the police liaison group and the crime and disorder steering group must also be considered. Staffing resources are not adequate to meet the costs of the work that arise from that area of Government policy alone, and I have a list of about 15 additional burdens that have already been placed on the council.
Further legislative duties will also be imposed on local authorities, and they look no less onerous. There is the duty to introduce e-government, the duty to introduce a policy under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and the new political management arrangements, all of which will require further work from increasingly stretched and under-resourced local authority staff.
As I said, this sclerotic effect is hindering not just the officers of the borough council but the work of councillors themselves. I am not making a political complaint on behalf of my party. It is true that in Harborough the Conservative party is the largest party on the council, with the Liberal Democrats some way behind and the Labour party a poor third. However, in Oadly and Wigston there are 21 Liberal Democrat councillors and—following the crossing of the floor by a Liberal Democrat last autumn—five Conservatives. There are no Labour councillors.
The problem is easily demonstrated. Last week's policy and resources committee agenda ran to 321 pages, 219 of which were unnecessary but for the need to fulfil central Government requirements. The agenda for the equivalent meeting in March 2000 contained only 50 pages. The present Government, and certainly their Back Benchers, disapprove of late night sittings in this House, but at least they get paid a salary for their attendance, if not their attention. Borough councillors should not be expected to wade through this bureaucratic treacle into the small hours. Huge chunks of the agenda are bound to be dealt with without proper discussion or scrutiny, and I should not be surprised if councillors decided to take matters into their own hands by considering hundreds of pages en bloc, so as to finish at a reasonable hour.
I shall give another example of the madness that the Government have created for the borough. The business plan required under the housing finance regime consists of a spreadsheet of 77 pages, with thousands of information cells. This bureaucratic nightmare is in addition to the housing strategy document that the borough must submit to the DETR via the Government Office for the East Midlands. Given that the borough has only 1,400 council dwellings, I cannot help asking whether all this extra paperwork has by any perceptible measure improved the standard of housing management.
126WH
I conclude by returning to Harborough district council, whose efforts to comply with the Government's demands are as courageous as the demands are burdensome. It is being put under huge strain in terms of personnel and finance, which is inhibiting the delivery of public services. I accept that it received some help from Whitehall for a homesearch project, for an e-government system in partnership with other authorities, for the delivery of care services with Leicestershire county council, for a home improvement agency with a housing association, and under the market towns initiative. However, there remains the underlying problem of the excessive and non-productive demands of central Government, which are not met with sufficient revenue support to allow any of the programmes to work satisfactorily. Harborough receives one of the lowest SSAs per head of population in the country, leading to a low level of net total spending per head.
Central Government's corporate demands on Harborough are truly staggering, and I shall list them as quickly as I can:
"Air Quality Strategy, BEST VALUE, Community Strategies, Contaminated Land Strategy, Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy, Cultural Strategy, Data Protection, Development of local strategic planning, Disability Discrimination Act, Duty to licence shops selling raw meat and enhanced inspection regime, E-Government, Green Travel Plan for Local Businesses, Health and Social Care Bill, Health Improvement Programmes, Home Energy Conservation Act, Homes Bill, Human Rights Act, LocalAgenda21, Local Transport Plan, Modernisation Agenda for Local Government, Monitoring Officer to take in Parish Councils, New statutory Codes of Practice for Food Safety Inspection, Race Relations Equality following Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Rural White Paper, Safe Route to School, Staff Travel Plans, Sub-Regional Strategies, The Power to promote Economic, Social and Environmental Well-being".
Will that list of demands lead to a sensible use of my local authorities' time, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If this Government value 1ocal government, they should, in the light of this evidence, provide my local authorities with the wherewithal to carry out their strategies, respond to their initiatives—eye-catching or otherwise—and hit their targets, or they should get off their backs. The Minister can choose, but she had better do so quickly.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for securing this opportunity to debate to local government and the issues that he has raised. Our record on local government finance since taking office is good, and the debate provides the opportunity to demonstrate that.
We have given priority to education and personal social services. Leicestershire county council's funding has increased substantially over the past few years, which will benefit the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents in the two district councils on which he concentrated today However, we are aware of the valuable role that district councils play in the life of the local community, so we have increased provision for that tier of authority also.
The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a colourful picture of the two district councils in his constituency and the areas in which they are placed and he is clearly

127WH
familiar with the work of both councils. Having spent 13 years as a local councillor and part of that as leader of a council, I am also familiar with the work of and the pressures that face local authorities.
I shall set out the general financial context because it is germane to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Since taking office, we have provided local authorities with an increase in Government grant of about £8 billion. That is an increase of 14 per cent. In real terms, which compares starkly with the period when I was in local authority. We had a real-terms cut of 7 per cent. in the four years leading up to 1997–98, which really was a struggle. Provision for spending on education will increase next year by nearly £2 billion or just over 8 per cent. and on social services by about £580 million. Local authorities have received a significant injection of cash in real terms and have stability with the assurance that that will continue.
Despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the authorities in his constituency have done very well from the increased investment. Government grant is paid to local authorities through the standard spending assessment system and he painted a bleak picture of the amount of grant that councils have received each year. I must put his comments in context. Leicestershire county council received a grant increase of almost £13 million. That is an increase of more than twice the rate of inflation and in line with the average for county councils and authorities in England. The district councils on which the hon. and 1earned Gentleman focused have also received above-average increases in standard spending assessment. Harborough's grant increase is below average for its class, but that is due to its tax base relative to the other district council that he spoke of. I shall give some details of how those local authorities have fared.
Harborourgh district council received an increase in standard spending assessment of 4.7 per cent. and an increase in grant of 2.4 per cent. That is a little less than the average for the class of authority, which was 3.9 per cent., but is accounted for by its higher and rising tax base. Oadby and Wigston district council received an increase in SSA of 6.3 per cent. and an increase in grant in the previous settlement of 7 per cent., which is twice the average for its class and, whatever baseline is used, three times the rate of inflation.
That is the context in which the hon. and learned Gentleman should locate his arguments. In addition to the general settlement, Leicestershire county council has received substantial neighbourhood renewal fund money. That does not relate specifically to the two district councils but has a knock-on effect in addressing some of the deep-seated problems in the area. Additional money has also been provided for specific purposes—for example, the Pathfinders award for local authority electronic service delivery to improve service and access, £1 million to the Welland partnership, which includes Harborough district council, and, in February, additional money through "invest 10 save" to provide internet-based services. Leicestershire county council, including Harborough, will receive almost £500,000 and another £2 million of funding will be provided for the Welland partnership via the single regeneration budget.
The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the Government are requiring councils to be more strategic and focused and to deliver quality services but that that
128WH
is not being matched by additional resources. I do not accept that argument. The increases in the general grant, as well as those for specific purposes, have been substantial and have gone to councils such as Harborough, and Oadby and Wigston.
Mr. Garnier: I know that the Minister is under some difficulty in responding to the debate. I am sorry that the e-mail system in her Department did not work last night, preventing her from receiving the draft of my speech that I sent her, and that the internal mail system failed to deliver the hard copy. She would have seen that I was concentrating not on Leicestershire county council, but on Harborough and Oadby and Wigston district councils. If she is proud to announce that one of my local authorities has received a 7 per cent. increase in grant and the other a 6 per cent. increase, will she restrict by equivalent proportions the burdens and duties to perform additional work that are placed on those authorities?
Ms Hughes: I think that the hon. And learned Gentleman is making two assumptions—first, about the relative costs of some of the extra requirements in terms of producing plans and so on, and secondly, about the extent to which we prescribe to local authorities the amount of money that they should spend on particular services. Local authorities, including the two district councils to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, have enormous flexibility in setting their own budgets and deciding on their priorities. He cannot claim evidence for his statement that a 7 per cent. increase in grant—or a 2.4 per cent. increase in the case of Harborough—may not be sufficient to accommodate extra demands.
I mentioned Leicestershire county council because it provides some of the most important services for people in those two district councils, including education and personal social services. It is relevant to point out the extent to which increasing the money that the county council receives for those services will have a beneficial effect.
One of the crucial issues at the heart of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was the performance of local government and whether there is room for improvement. I am aware that other authorities in the area surrounding his constituency face bigger challenges than those referred to today, and are arguably coping somewhat better. For example, Charnwood and Rushcliffe district councils have had very good reports from the Improvement and Development Agency, and their best value performance plans betray an excellent grasp of the requirements of best value and good performance across a significant range of council services. It is important to note that some district councils of comparable size are not only grasping the agenda but using it to improve their performance.
Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: I should like to make progress, because I must get to the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
By comparison, it could be suggested that both Harborough and Oadby and Wigston district councils need to do more to improve the quality of their services

129WH
and to organise the way in which they manage themselves in order to produce better efficiency and value for money. I was concerned to learn that under compulsory competitive tendering, Harborough had to disband its in-house direct service organisation, and to institute other changes, as a result of hiding continuing long-term losses that should have closed the DSO much earlier. In 1997–98, Oadby and Wigston was served notice for failures to meet financial objectives in sport and leisure and ground maintenance.
Mr. Garnier: May I interrupt the Minister?
Ms Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
Oadby and Wigston received a qualified report on its best value performance plan for 2000–01. The plan lacked sufficient information on performance indicators, gave no indication of the resource implications for service selection and provided no framework for running best value reviews, and its strategy on challenge required improvement. I shall
130WH
happily give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman at this point, but we have only a minute left and I ask him to bear that in mind.
Mr. Garnier: I do not want the Minister to mislead herself. The scandal over the Harborough direct service organisation is of some antiquity, and antedates best value. Is she content that the two little local authorities have to spend more than £100,000 a year in audit fees?
Ms Hughes: We have certainly tried to ensure that the fees for smaller councils are proportionate, and we are continuing to do so. The structure of the funding that the Government gave through the Audit Commission to support the cost of audit fees was front-loaded to assist smaller councils.
In conclusion, I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I make no apologies for the extra requirements on local authorities. We have a duty to ensure that we are encouraging all councils to come up to the standard of the best. The variance in the quality of service is still far too great.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has carried out an assessment to determine whether the PFI contract for the disposal of waste entered into between Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils and Fosca plc in 1998 complies with guidance issued by his Department on 22 December 2000. [147513]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Herefordshire and Worcestershire waste PFI scheme was endorsed by the Interdepartmental Project Review Group in February 1998, following an assessment in line with the criteria published on 9 December 1997. General criteria for all PFI projects were

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02 (where known)

  Revenue Support Grant

  162.131

  167.079

  68.861

  69.537

  73.971

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  136.222

  137.357

  40.226

  44.997

  43.876

  Housing Investment Programme

  22.370

  1.995

  2.186

  34.340

  46.425

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.324

  1.049

  1.016

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.064

  0.050

  0.000

  n/a

  n/a

  New Deal for Communities Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  3.372

  4.079

  1.265

  0

  0.359

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  3.383

  4.080

  1.292

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.284

  0.490

  0.773

  2.270

  3.065

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0.043

  0.032

  0.043

  0.054

  1The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000" respectively.

  LGR SCA figures for NE Lincolnshire. As follows:

  1997–98—£1.900 million

  1998–99—£1.568 million

  21997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CR1 from 1997–98.

  3Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CR1 being merged with HIP.

  4Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. The North East Lincolnshire MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £4.786 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  Note:

  North East Lincolnshire's overall capital a location of £6.425 million, represents an increase of 171.10 per cent. on the inherited 1997–98 allocation.

  North East Lincolnshire—SRB funding received under Rounds 1 to 6

  Round 6—Unlocking potential

  A seven-year scheme submitted by the Community Partnership for North East Lincolnshire, it aims to create sustainable local jobs and grow a creative and enterprising culture in deprived communities as a fundamental drive to overcome social exclusion. The scheme has three carefully balanced elements: Job creation and the promotion of entrepreneurship and enterprise, Achieving
  178W
  revised on 21 December 1998 and 23 December 1999. Revised specific criteria for PFI waste schemes in England were published on 22 September 2000. Officials will be writing to authorities with endorsed proposals for waste schemes, including Herefordshire and Worcestershire, to explore with them whether their existing schemes might be brought more closely in to line with the subsequent changes to the PFI criteria.

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156242]

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to North East Lincolnshire from 1997 to 2001–02 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Great Grimsby. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  social inclusion; Sustainable regeneration through infrastructure improvements.

  SRB total £12.1 million. Scheme total £30.7 million.

  Round 5—Yorkshire and Humber Coastal Tourism Initiative

  A five-year scheme submitted by the Yorkshire Tourist Board to support and encourage the growth of small tourism based businesses in the East Coast target area from Staithes to Cleethorpes. Support is through a

  179W
  range of programmes including grant assistance for product improvements, marketing and environmental improvements, subsidised consultancy, business mentoring, training and benchmarking.

  SRB total: £529,000. Scheme total £2 million.

  Round 4—Creating A Learning Community

  A six-year scheme to tackle a local culture which does not value education or lifelong learning, and addresses a high level of need, by implementing a strategy to raise expectations and foster lifelong learning. The scheme will promote positive attitudes to learning in communities, within families and within the workplace by improving access to support and guidance structures; increasing opportunities to improve basic skills; promoting investment in employee training and development; and nurturing effective partnerships to widen participation.

  SRB total: £1.76 million. Scheme total: £5.55 million.

  Round 3—Investing in Youth

  A seven-year targeting the under 26s, tackling unemployment, educational attainment, skills training and health. It takes advantages of multimedia TV and district cabling to reach otherwise inaccessible groups and builds upon the Safer Cities programme with measures to involve your people in reducing crime and vandalism and engage them in community safety and environmental works.

  SRB total: £7.19 million. Scheme total £19 million.

  Round 2—Port Districts

  A seven-year scheme seeking the economic and social regeneration of the most deprived communities in the ports districts of Immingham and Grimsby. The port areas are a close mix of industrial and residential use. The scheme identifies how local skill/educational levels and aspirations, poor housing and infrastructure and is a comprehensive scheme providing support for the key food and port related industries, housing and community capacity building measures.

  SRB total: £8.47 million. Scheme total: £32 million.

  Round 1—Nunsthorpe and Bradley Park Resource Centre

  The provision of a resource centre at Nunsthorpe and levered in a significant contribution from the private sector as well as the public sector. The Nunsthorpe estate suffers from high unemployment, crime and vandalism. The resource centre complemented initiatives already being delivered under the Estate Action programme by providing facilities for the voluntary sector, support for tenants groups, much-needed leisure facilities and workshop and training opportunities.

  SRB total: £187,000. Scheme total: £1.7 million.

  European Funding

  Under the 1997–99 Objective 2 programme there were a series of Action Plans in the North East Lincolnshire area covering business support and community economic development (worth about £8.2 million in ERDF and £2.4 million in ESF grant) together with capital projects (Europarc development site and Cleethorpes tourism projects worth over £6 million in ERDF/ESF).

  For Objective 3 (ESF), NEL had £19,000 in 1997 and £126,000 in 1999–2000.
  180W
  For Objective 4 (ESF), NEL support was subsumed into Humberside-wide activity. This is great for fostering partnership working but means that it is almost impossible to disaggregate the figures for an exercise like this.

  Water Abstraction Licences
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received concerning the impact on a company's ability to plan and invest for the long term of his proposal relating to a time limit on water abstraction licences; [156344]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the environmental effects of his proposed time limit on water abstraction licences. [156345]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department received a number of representations in response to the 1998 consultation document "The Review of the Water Abstraction Licensing System in England and Wales". These were summarised in "Taking Water Responsibly", published in 1999. There was widespread support among respondents for time limited licences on environmental grounds. About a sixth of the respondents were opposed to time limiting. This was mainly because of concerns about the possible impact on business planning and investment. A number of respondents to the draft Water Bill published last year have commented on time limiting licences. Similar comments have been made as were made previously. Many of those expressing concern accept the need for time limits in principle, but want licences to have a duration longer than the standard period in order to allow companies to plan and invest for the long term.

  There will be a presumption of renewal with all time limited licences. Also, it will be open to abstractors to apply for licences with time limits of more than 12 years. Each application will be considered by the Environment Agency on a case-by-case basis and will need to demonstrate need and that an assessment has been made of the environmental impact.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what grounds he based his proposal for a time limit on water abstraction licences. [156346]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Government's policy on time limiting abstraction licences was set out in "Taking Water Responsibly", published in 1999. There are long-term uncertainties which could lead to some currently acceptable abstractions becoming unsustainable. The principal concern is uncertainty about climate change impact upon water resources replenishment and hence the availability of water for abstraction in future decades.

  Another significant concern is the extent to which changing technological or economic patterns will continue to affect the use or non-use of licensed abstractions in the future. Just as there have been changes in past decades in those patterns, so there have been changes in awareness and expectations of the social dimension to the water environment and the activities and values which it supports through "in situ" or abstractive use.

  Recycling
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of Great Britain's waste has been recycled in each of the last five years. [156348]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Total annual data for GB are not available for each of the five years requested. The latest available data are for 1998 and show an estimate of between 170–210 m. tonnes of waste produced by households, commerce and industry, including construction and demolition in the UK, of which 26 per cent. were recycled. Information on the amount of municipal waste collected and recycled in England and Wales is obtained on an annual basis through the Department's annual Municipal Waste Management Survey. Municipal waste makes up about a sixth of total waste produced. The municipal waste recycling rates for 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1993–99 were 7.1, 7.2, 8.0 and 9.7 per cent. respectively. 1999–2000 data are expected to be available in the summer. Waste recycling in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Pathfinder
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library his Department's response to the Environment Agency's consultation document, 'Pathfinder'. [156646]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has not yet responded to the Environment Agency's consultation document "The Business of Learning—Investing in a Sustainable Future", which was developed from the Agency's Pathfinder project. When we do send a response I will place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Statutory Instruments
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department and its predecessors in each year from 1993 to 1998, inclusive. [156521]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by my Department and its predecessors in each year from 1993 to 1998 was as follows:

  Year

  1993

  276

  1994

  266

  1995

  260

  1996

  322

  1997

  280

  1998

  270

  Bus Services (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus services were operated from Shrewsbury(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156508]
  182W
  Mr. Hill
  The information is as follows:1997 bus services from Shrewsbury (excluding park and rides) per week: 881
  Latest recorded figures: 928.
  The increase in journeys from Shrewsbury to other destinations amounts to 47 per week and are in the main rural services. Some of this increase may be as a result of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant which was introduced in 1998–99 and has provided over 1,800 new and enhanced services in rural England and 58 in Shropshire in 1999–2000. The allocation for 2001–02 has already been announced and will allow the support of services in towns up to a population of 25,000. A percentage of the grant will also be available for the support of recently withdrawn services or existing services under threat of withdrawal. The allocation for Shropshire for 2001–02 is £804,914 with similar allocations up to 2003–04.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many sites of special scientific interest there were in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [156510]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The table shows the total number of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in the Shrewsbury and Atcham borough for each year since 1992.

  Year

  Number of SSSIs

  1992

  22

  1993

  23

  1994

  24

  1995

  24

  1996

  24

  1997

  24

  1998

  25

  1999

  25

  2000

  27

  2001

  27

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to regenerate areas in England which are affected by the decline of the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement. [156804]

  Ms Armstrong
  Fishing communities in England, in common with other areas of the country, are eligible to apply for funding under a wide range of current Government and European Union initiatives. These can be split broadly into three categories:initiatives specific to coastal and rural communities—examples include grant schemes administered by MAFF, and the European Union LEADER programme;
  assistance for those leaving the industry with re-skilling and re-employment. DfEE administers a number of services and programmes through the Employment Service, including Work-Based Learning for Adults; the RDAs administer the Skills Development Fund, which is focused on local projects developed

  183W
  in response to specific need; and the new Learning and Skills Councils are working on Workforce Development Plans, again geared to local labour market requirements.
  regeneration initiatives—such as Regional Selective Assistance, Enterprise Grants, European Structural Funds and the RDAs' Single Regeneration Budget.
  These schemes are already providing considerable assistance. Nevertheless, I also appreciate that fishing communities have suffered particularly badly in recent times, due to declining fish stocks and other pressures, and that they have a strong case for further assistance.

  I have therefore asked the Regional Development Agencies to set aside £5.5 million from their budget to go towards a new programme of assistance for fishing communities. The programme will aim to help local partnerships to devise strategies for regenerating affected areas. It will be designed specifically to help fishing communities develop plans for their areas and make their case to Regional Development Agencies and other sources of funding, and more effectively access assistance from existing programmes.

  It will be possible for some of this money to be used to help tourism, including re-opening coastal paths.

  This new initiative forms part of a wider Government package of assistance to fishing communities. Earlier this week, MAFF announced that they are making available £6 million for additional assistance in England to assist restructuring in the fishing industry. They will be consulting with the industry about the precise form the assistance should take. MAFF also announced that they are launching a fisheries structural fund grants scheme (FIFG) for England; they have already committed £6 million to this EU scheme over the coming three years. This is in addition to a separate £5 million fund for fisheries in Cornwall.

  The total value of the MAFF and DETR packages is £22.5 million.

  I am also pleased to say that colleagues in the DfEE are today announcing a package of support for fishing communities. The Employment Service will use every opportunity to assist those made unemployed to return to work as quickly as possible. This will be a flexible service, tailored to the needs of the particular community. The type of service will depend on what is appropriate in each instance. All aspects of jobsearch, training, access to vacancies, help with job applications and a fast track benefit service, maybe through On-site Jobshops, can be used. Open days and Job Fairs may also be an option.

  ES staff will be available to offer intelligence on the local labour market and to match people to current vacancies. There is also access to over 350,000 vacancies on the website www.employmentservice.gov.uk and to a national telephone job hunting service Employment Service Direct (0845 60 60 234).

  Additional help through the Job Transition Service will be offered in areas where large scale redundancies occur and where unemployment is already high. It will not only help those people directly affected but also people from communities which are dependent upon the fishing industry.
  184W
  The Job Transition Service is a new programme and key to the way in which this Government are tackling large scale redundancies. The Job Transition Service builds on existing ES support to provide the extra help needed to move people rapidly back into work. In particular, it works with employers to identify skills shortages and match people without jobs to jobs without people.

  The DfEE and the Employment Service will work closely with other departments and agencies to tackle the issue of job losses in the fisheries industry and the community as a whole. The approach will be practical and efficient, responding to local needs.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Opinion Polling
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative analytical work his Department has commissioned from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997; and what was (i) the cost of the contract and (ii) the specific nature of the work commissioned. [155666]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]The Department has not commissioned quantitative or qualitative analytical work through GGC/NOP.

  Astra Pension Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision will be made to cover the shortfall in pension that the Astra Pension Scheme members are expecting; and if he will make a statement. [156119]

  Mr. Wicks
  The process for winding up the Astra Group Pension Scheme is ongoing. The extent of any shortfall in benefits secured for members will not be known until the process is completed.

  Student Travel Grants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to help young people over the age of 16 who are studying in school or college towards the cost of travelling expenses to their place of education. [156195]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department makes available funding to LEAs for schools and to colleges for students of 16 and over to help with transport and other course related costs. These funds are part of a £115 million package of discretionary support available from September 2001–02 onwards, which is an increase of £16 million over the 2000–01 allocation. We also provide up to £150 million for Education Maintenance Allowances to provide students of 16 and over in 56 LEAs with funding to support their costs and provide incentives.

  We have given guidance to LEAs, who have a duty to assess and respond to local transport needs, on how best to work in partnership with colleges in providing local transport and local policies. In the longer term we have commissioned an exercise using external consultants to produce good practice guidance and options for developing policy.

  Statutory Instruments
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department and its predecessors in each year from 1993 to 1998 inclusive. [156520]

  Mr. Wills
  The following numbers of statutory instruments were laid:

  Year

  Number

  1993

  74

  1994

  103

  1995

  84

  1996

  88

  1997

  70

  1998

  144

  Grammar Schools
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the ability tests set by grammar schools will be set on the same basis as those in the National Curriculum. [156887]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Admission authorities for grammar schools are responsible for setting their own arrangements for selecting pupils by academic ability. It is up to them to decide what method of testing to adopt.

  Taskforces
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the taskforces which report to his Department. [157151]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Using the standard definition of a taskforce as a body with membership drawn not solely from the public sector, a lifetime of less than two years and a remit focused on a single issue taskforces reporting to DfEE are:Advisory Group for Disabled People in Employment and Training
  Advisory Group on Access and Hardship Funds
  Advisory Group on Citizenship in Post Compulsory Education and Training
  Citizenship Education Working Party
  Connexions Service: Youth Service Transition Working Group
  Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership
  Expert Group on Neighbourhood Nurseries
  Friends of Sure Start
  Graduate Apprenticeship National Steering Group
  Investors in People in Schools Advisory Group
  Learning Partnerships Group
  Literacy and Numeracy Strategy Group
  Modern Apprenticeships Advisory Committee
  National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs
  National Training Organisation Advisory Group
  New Deal Taskforce
  Personal, Social and Health Education Advisory Group
  Post 16 Funding External Partners Group
  School Standards Taskforce.

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by constituency the number of achievement awards made to schools. [154747]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 March 2001, c. 160W]: The table contained inaccuracies. A corrected table has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the total value of achievement awards made and the percentage of the national total budget which schools in each local education authority received. [154749]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 March 2000, c. 165–68W]: The table contained inaccuracies. The following table shows the correct information.

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  LEA

  Value of awards (£)

  Percentage of total value

  City of London

  8,400

  0.0

  Camden

  279,470

  0.5

  Greenwich

  277,480

  0.4

  Hackney

  269,250

  0.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  283,850

  0.5

  Islington

  218,990

  0.4

  Kensington

  214,550

  0.3

  Lambeth

  276,110

  0.4

  Lewisham

  435,590

  0.7

  Southwark

  398,880

  0.6

  Tower Hamlets

  609,190

  1.0

  Wandsworth

  323,670

  0.5

  Westminster

  269,080

  0.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  371,230

  0.6

  Barnet

  509,890

  0.8

  Bexley

  363,290

  0.6

  Brent

  356,150

  0.6

  Bromley

  353,450

  0.6

  Croydon

  330,120

  0.5

  Ealing

  619,830

  1.0

  Enfield

  419,430

  0.7

  Haringey

  313,870

  0.5

  Harrow

  263,330

  0.4

  Havering

  394,230

  0.6

  Hillingdon

  402,730

  0.7

  Hounslow

  285,390

  0.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  173,160

  0.3

  Merton

  220,720

  0.4

  Newham

  611,620

  1.0

  Redbridge

  449,570

  0.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  190,930

  0.3

  Sutton

  309,620

  0.5

  Waltham Forest

  305,160

  0.5

  Birmingham

  2,040,550

  3.3

  Coventry

  335,780

  0.5

  Dudley

  407,370

  0.7

  Sandwell

  418,260

  0.7

  Solihull

  323,180

  0.5

  Walsall

  342,890

  0.6

  Wolverhampton

  409,340

  0.7

  Knowsley

  171,210

  0.3

  Liverpool

  797,600

  1.3

  St. Helens

  276,590

  0.4

  Sefton

  553,900

  0.9

  Wirral

  373,450

  0.6

  Bolton

  397,090

  0.6

  Bury

  174,770

  0.3

  Manchester

  616,310

  1.0

  Oldham

  328,150

  0.5

  Rochdale

  253,520

  0.4

  Salford

  274,140

  0.4

  187W

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  LEA

  Value of awards (£)

  Percentage of total value

  Stockport

  240,690

  0.4

  Tameside

  298,180

  0.5

  Trafford

  416,780

  0.7

  Wigan

  335,670

  0.5

  Barnsley

  276,640

  0.4

  Doncaster

  430,970

  0.7

  Rotherham

  372,870

  0.6

  Sheffield

  495,130

  0.8

  Bradford

  416,180

  0.7

  Calderdale

  266,520

  0.4

  Kirklees

  602,380

  1.0

  Leeds

  889,260

  1.4

  Wakefield

  407,570

  0.7

  Gateshead

  314,720

  0.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  256,380

  0.4

  North Tyneside

  345,300

  0.6

  South Tyneside

  246,140

  0.4

  Sunderland

  464,730

  0.8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  275,370

  0.4

  Bristol, City of

  349,350

  0.6

  North Somerset

  179,480

  0.3

  South Gloucestershire

  218,730

  0.4

  Hartlepool

  195,920

  0.3

  Middlesbrough

  226,140

  0.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  289,050

  0.5

  Stockton-on-Tees

  333,710

  0.5

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  370,540

  0.6

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  309,290

  0.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  255,850

  0.4

  North Lincolnshire

  166,650

  0.3

  North Yorkshire

  573,920

  0.9

  York

  129,420

  0.2

  Bedfordshire

  371,680

  0.6

  Luton

  214,470

  0.3

  Buckinghamshire

  400,420

  0.6

  Milton Keynes

  293,380

  0.5

  Derbyshire

  917,460

  1.5

  Derby

  266,080

  0.4

  Dorset

  360,140

  0.6

  Poole

  137,320

  0.2

  Bournemouth

  127,940

  0.2

  Durham

  671,210

  1.1

  Darlington

  148,540

  0.2

  East Sussex

  376,080

  0.6

  Brighton and Hove

  355,530

  0.6

  Hampshire

  1,218,320

  2.0

  Portsmouth

  177,610

  0.3

  Southampton

  316,480

  0.5

  Leicestershire

  664,890

  1.1

  Leicester

  263,010

  0.4

  Rutland

  54,190

  0.1

  Staffordshire

  866,030

  1.4

  Stoke

  323,410

  0.5

  Wiltshire

  429,320

  0.7

  School achievement awards by local education authority and type of school

  LEA

  Nursery

  PRU

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  18

  4

  1

  Barnet

  2

  1

  38

  7

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  30

  5

  —

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  —

  26

  5

  3

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  39

  12

  1

  Bexley

  —

  —

  23

  6

  —

  Birmingham

  1

  —

  136

  27

  6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  20

  4

  —

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  6

  2

  —

  Bolton

  —

  —

  37

  4

  1

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  7

  2

  1

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  11

  1

  —

  188W

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  LEA

  Value of awards (£)

  Percentage of total value

  Swindon

  81,560

  0.1

  Bracknell Forest

  84,810

  0.1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  141,050

  0.2

  West Berkshire

  180,300

  0.3

  Reading

  191,260

  0.3

  Slough

  264,200

  0.4

  Wokingham

  166,430

  0.3

  Cambridgeshire

  439,760

  0.7

  Peterborough

  332,310

  0.5

  Cheshire

  727,450

  1.2

  Halton

  235,160

  0.4

  Warrington

  180,770

  0.3

  Devon

  725,750

  1.2

  Plymouth

  275,730

  0.4

  Torbay

  213,230

  0.3

  Essex

  1,484,890

  2.4

  Southend-on-Sea

  310,290

  0.5

  Thurrock

  268,890

  0.4

  Herefordshire

  126,630

  0.2

  Worcestershire

  591,660

  1.0

  Kent

  1,462,280

  2.4

  Medway

  284,880

  0.5

  Lancashire

  1,426,470

  2.3

  Blackburn

  240,610

  0.4

  Blackpool

  88,650

  0.1

  Nottinghamshire

  787,890

  1.3

  Nottingham

  440,570

  0.7

  Shropshire

  235,660

  0.4

  Telford and Wrekin

  242,300

  0.4

  Cornwall

  368,980

  0.6

  Cumbria

  765,530

  1.2

  Gloucestershire

  500,540

  0.8

  Hertfordshire

  1,423,680

  2.3

  Isle of Wight

  80,190

  0.1

  Lincolnshire

  818,420

  1.3

  Norfolk

  951,710

  1.5

  Northamptonshire

  489,980

  0.8

  Northumberland

  437,610

  0.7

  Oxfordshire

  563,070

  0.9

  Somerset

  505,340

  0.8

  Suffolk

  703,770

  1.1

  Surrey

  1,063,410

  1.7

  Warwickshire

  742,960

  1.2

  West Sussex

  626,520

  1.0

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the member of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools which have received achievement awards. [154742]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 March 2001, c. 159–64W]: The following table shows the correct information
  189W

  School achievement awards by local education authority and type of school

  LEA

  Nursery

  PRU

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Bradford

  1

  —

  37

  6

  2

  Brent

  —

  1

  18

  5

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  22

  4

  4

  Bristol, City of

  4

  —

  41

  3

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  24

  5

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  3

  47

  7

  —

  Bury

  1

  —

  22

  1

  2

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  28

  3

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  50

  5

  1

  Camden

  —

  1

  15

  5

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  81

  11

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  43

  7

  —

  Coventry

  —

  —

  24

  5

  1

  Croydon

  3

  1

  23

  5

  2

  Cumbria

  —

  1

  85

  17

  —

  Darlington

  —

  —

  10

  4

  1

  Derby

  3

  —

  23

  3

  3

  Derbyshire

  2

  —

  93

  19

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  97

  10

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  32

  7

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  32

  11

  1

  Dudley

  —

  —

  26

  9

  —

  Durham

  3

  —

  96

  8

  4

  Ealing

  —

  —

  32

  9

  1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  33

  4

  1

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  47

  4

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  17

  7

  —

  Essex

  —

  2

  138

  21

  3

  Gateshead

  1

  —

  35

  4

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  57

  9

  2

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  24

  5

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  25

  3

  —

  Halton

  2

  —

  23

  3

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  —

  19

  5

  3

  Hampshire

  —

  2

  133

  16

  5

  Haringey

  —

  —

  22

  4

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  18

  4

  1

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  8

  4

  1

  Havering

  —

  1

  22

  10

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  16

  4

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  1

  124

  28

  3

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  21

  7

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  21

  4

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  15

  1

  —

  Islington

  1

  —

  16

  3

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  —

  20

  2

  —

  Kent

  —

  2

  131

  28

  2

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  —

  —

  32

  5

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  1

  11

  3

  2

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  61

  8

  —

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  26

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  1

  —

  22

  3

  2

  Lancashire

  7

  4

  118

  32

  9

  Leeds

  —

  —

  91

  7

  1

  Leicester

  —

  —

  30

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  66

  16

  —

  Lewisham

  1

  1

  27

  6

  3

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  59

  27

  3

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  57

  14

  3

  Luton

  —

  1

  18

  3

  —

  Manchester

  —

  —

  43

  6

  6

  Medway

  —

  —

  26

  5

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  21

  2

  1

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  20

  2

  2

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  23

  3

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  1

  36

  3

  1

  Newham

  —

  —

  27

  7

  1

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  105

  16

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  20

  4

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  18

  4

  —

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  13

  3

  1

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  30

  6

  —

  190W 191W

  School achievement awards by local education authority and type of school

  LEA

  Nursery

  PRU

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  71

  13

  —

  Northamptonshire

  3

  —

  63

  6

  1

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  42

  17

  4

  Nottingham

  2

  —

  37

  7

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  86

  14

  2

  Oldham

  —

  —

  33

  4

  1

  Oxfordshire

  3

  1

  50

  12

  4

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  26

  4

  1

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  25

  5

  —

  Poole

  —

  —

  9

  3

  —

  Portsmouth

  1

  1

  17

  —

  5

  Reading

  1

  1

  12

  5

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  1

  18

  9

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  1

  22

  6

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  —

  16

  3

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  18

  4

  3

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  37

  5

  —

  Rutland

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Salford

  —

  —

  28

  4

  3

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  35

  6

  —

  Sefton

  —

  —

  29

  13

  2

  Sheffield

  2

  —

  35

  6

  3

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  37

  4

  —

  Slough

  —

  1

  14

  6

  —

  Solihull

  —

  —

  28

  4

  —

  Somerset

  —

  —

  57

  9

  3

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  20

  3

  —

  South Tyneside

  4

  2

  23

  3

  1

  Southampton

  —

  —

  31

  3

  2

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  —

  19

  5

  1

  Southwark

  2

  —

  27

  7

  1

  St. Helens

  1

  —

  25

  2

  3

  Staffordshire

  —

  1

  84

  17

  6

  Stockport

  —

  —

  29

  3

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  —

  —

  23

  6

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5

  1

  30

  4

  2

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  71

  19

  1

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  33

  5

  4

  Surrey

  1

  —

  101

  17

  —

  Sutton

  1

  —

  12

  8

  —

  Swindon

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  30

  4

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  23

  5

  —

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  17

  5

  2

  Torbay

  —

  —

  12

  4

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  1

  37

  8

  3

  Trafford

  —

  —

  32

  9

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  42

  6

  —

  Walsall

  —

  —

  22

  7

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  —

  13

  6

  1

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  22

  4

  1

  Warrington

  1

  —

  26

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  3

  —

  57

  14

  4

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  21

  2

  1

  West Sussex

  —

  2

  72

  7

  3

  Westminster

  —

  —

  23

  4

  —

  Wigan

  —

  —

  38

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  43

  11

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  17

  3

  —

  Wirral

  —

  —

  42

  2

  4

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  17

  2

  —

  Wolverhampton

  3

  —

  29

  7

  2

  Worcestershire

  1

  1

  61

  13

  1

  York

  —

  1

  13

  2

  2

  Labour Market Statistics
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what revisions to the Labour Market Statistics are scheduled for April; and what the impact of such revisions will be on(a) national and local
  192W
  statistics and (b) relevant Department for Education and Employment policies. [155761]

  Mr. Blunkett
  ONS announced on 19 July 2000 that they would be introducing a new annual survey of employee jobs—the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI)—to
  193W
  replace the Annual Employment Survey. The new statistics will be published in the Labour Market First Release on 11 April. These data are used in national regional and local estimates of employee jobs and the national and regional Workforce Jobs series. In addition the estimates are used in the calculation of claimant count rates nationally, regionally and locally and in national and regional productivity estimates.

  Work carried out by ONS established that the ABI was the better estimate of employee jobs in the economy and that the errors in the previous estimate had occurred back over time. ONS have indicated the following on the likely effects.
  Early indications, from mid-2000, were that the revisions will show 500,000 to 750,000 more jobs for 1998 than previously estimated. If these indications of the scale are applied to the claimant unemployment rate, then the 1998 UK rate would be revised down by 0.2 percentage points.
  The UK claimant count level is unaffected.
  Productivity levels will be revised down, but growth rates will only be slightly affected by the introduction of the ABI. An improved methodology is being introduced from 1997 onwards.
  Revisions will take place over the history of the series.
  Locally, employee job estimates and claimant unemployment rates for regions, local authorities and parliamentary constituencies will also be revised. DfEE like all users have no indication of the scale of these revisions for each local area. The claimant count rates will be revised downwards nationally. Past experience suggests that although the local rates will in general be revised down some local claimant rates may be revised up.

  As the revisions will be over the history of the series, changes over time in these series will be relatively unaffected.

  There will also be annual seasonal adjustment reviews to the Labour Force Survey, claimant count and vacancies series. These do not usually lead to significant revisions.

  The information available from ONS only gives some indication of the likely scale of the revisions. DfEE will fully assess any impact on our policies once we have the exact information available to us. However, the indication that changes over time will be relatively unaffected suggests that the impact on our policies will not be major.

  Full details on the new statistics will be available on 11 April from the House of Commons Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department provides for each project it supports in Kenya. [156703]

  Clare Short
  The table lists, by sector, all current approved projects in Kenya and their funding allocations totalling £164.46 million. Disbursement of funds takes place over a number of years reflecting the varying project lifespans.
  194W

  Sector/Project

  Allocation (£)

  Agriculture and Livestock

  Kenya Trypanosomiasis Research Institute (KETR) Project Phase III

  2,381,600

  ABLH Smallholder Mkt. and Cert. Project

  2,819,000

  SmallHolder Dairy Project

  2,007,000

  Farm Africa Goat Project

  1,133,000

  EPAG: Com. Animal Health

  462,220

  Farming Systems Kenya

  303,000

  Agriculture Sector Reform

  48,000

  Rural Livelihoods Policy Influencing

  120,000

  ITDG Decent'd Animal Health

  350,861

  Land Tenure Project

  300,000

  Sabatia Food Security/Resource Project

  317,289

  Agric Tech Dissemm Project

  50,000

  RNR Regional Co-ordinator

  45,000

  Subtotal

  10,336,970

  Forestry

  Forestry Consultation

  75,000

  Subtotal

  75,000

  Rural Development

  Aga Khan Foundation—Kwale

  1,100,000

  Wajir Pastoralist Dev II

  1,002,044

  ActionAid Capacity Bid Ph 2

  2,000,000

  Subtotal

  4,102,044

  Public Administration

  Strengthening Gov. Fin & Acct'g

  1,100,000

  Support to Attorney General

  438,600

  Beijing Platform for Action II

  513,000

  Population Census 1999

  1,235,000

  Gender Strategy

  30,000

  Poverty Eradication Plan

  25,000

  Support to Civil Service Reform

  220,230

  Support to Kenya Anti Corruption Auth

  225,000

  Poverty Information in Kenya

  50,000

  Political Empowerment Project

  2,200,000

  PRSP Consultation

  750,000

  Legal Sector Reform

  50,000

  Subtotal

  38,336,830

  Water and Sanitation

  CARE NDHEWAS Project

  908,785

  Water Aid Development of ASAL Water

  608,791

  ASAL water II

  950,000

  CARE Garissa

  405,693

  SASOL

  353,059

  Subtotal

  3,226,328

  Business and Finance

  Barclays Loan Guarantee

  969,092

  Enterprise Initiative Prj II

  600,000

  CARE Women's Econ Develop.

  2,758,188

  Support to KWFT

  1,741,623

  MFI Analysis and Support

  50,000

  K-Rep Phase II

  953,904

  Deregulation Phase II

  1,377,779

  Mwezi Kali 2 BGTP

  925,669

  ApproTec Ram Oil Press

  83,000

  Co-op Bank Micro Finance

  1,125,000

  Support to Faulu Phase II

  2,520,000

  Support to KICK Phase II

  399,872

  Financial Services to the Poor

  70,000

  KICK/Green Disabled Group

  65,339

  Small Enterprise Awards Scheme

  634,000

  ApproTec Long Term Irrigation

  1,700,000

  Business Partnership Project

  1,150,000

  Enabling Environment for Business

  100,000

  Subtotal

  17,223,466

  195W

  Sector/Project

  Allocation (£)

  Urban Development

  Nairobi Urban Poverty Project

  2,913,800

  Mombasa Urban Project

  2,844,000

  Kibera Urban Env. Sanitation Project

  60,000

  Subtotal

  5,817,800

  Education

  Strengthening Primary Education

  13,360,000

  Primary School Management

  4,760,000

  Mumias Educ. For Empowerment

  400,000

  AA Community Education Initiative

  400,000

  Subtotal

  18,920,000

  Health and Welfare

  Interim Vaccine Procurement

  1,793,750

  Kenya Family Health Project

  11,470,000

  HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care

  26,000,000

  Safe Motherhood Partnership Fund

  1,720,000

  Health Planning and Reform Support

  484,000

  AMREF Employer Based Malaria

  849,755

  East African Malaria Monitoring and Research

  263,709

  Eradication of Polio in East Africa

  7,907,688

  Malaria Control in Kenya

  1,163,820

  AMREF Turkana CBHC Phase II

  500,000

  Subtotal

  52,152,722

  Conflict

  Pastoral Conflict in Kenya

  25,000

  Arid District Conflict Reduction Proj.

  595,000

  Subtotal

  620,000

  Emergencies/Drought

  MSF Spain Emergency Project

  530,000

  EPAG Mandera

  184,000

  OXFAM Borehole Protection

  1,110,944

  OXFAM Turkana Food Distribution

  313,248

  WFP Emergency Operation 6203

  10,030,000

  Livestock Off-take

  150,000

  Support to Office of the President

  180,000

  UNICEF Emergency Nutrition

  158,043

  FAO Emergency Seed Distribution

  20,000

  UNICEF Health and Nutrition

  600,000

  FAO CBPP Campaign

  144,650

  Subtotal

  13,420,885

  Roads

  Study of Roads Agency

  230,000

  Subtotal

  230,000

  Romania and Albania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the assistance programmes her Department is funding in(a) Romania and (b) Albania. [156704]

  Clare Short
  Our main financial contribution to development programmes is through the EC and other multilateral agencies. Our share of EC programme commitments to Romania and Albania in 2000 was £79 million.

  Activities under our bilateral programmes are as follows:

  In Romania we are funding programmes for accountancy and audit reform; the Court of Audit; civil service reform; health care and child care reform; the development of a probation service; development of insurance services; energy sector regulation; social
  196W
  protection; education finance; mining communities; rural development; citizens advice and information services; environmental project design; environmental partnerships at municipal level; and water and wastewater services.

  In Albania we are supporting the Government's Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy and Medium Term Expenditure Framework; health financing and planning; taxation reform; media development; public administration reform; social policy and social service reform; rural livelihoods; environment; and emergency planning and disposal or ordnance.

  We published a country strategy paper for Romania in October 1999, and for Albania in January 2001. Copies are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department has provided to UNICEF for its work in the protection of young refugees from(a) Romania and (b) Albania. [156705]

  Clare Short
  We have provided a total of £7.75 million to UNICEF for programmes in the Balkans. Of this sum, £1 million was allocated to Albania and £3.5 million for regional programmes. There was no specific allocation for Romania.

  Government Expenditure Target
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards meeting the Government's target for expenditure on overseas development as a proportion of gross national product. [157222]

  Clare Short
  My Department announced on 2 April that the UK oda/GNP ratio for calendar year 2000 is provisionally estimated at 0.31 per cent. This puts the Government on track to achieve the target of 0.33 per cent. by the financial year 2003–04.

DEFENCE

  Manual Military Law Part III
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans there are for the Manual of Military Law Part III to be(a) be revised, (b) reprinted and (c) reissued; and if he will make a statement; [155920]

  (2) when the most recent edition of the Manual of Military Law Part III was printed; if this edition is currently in use; and if he will make a statement; [155918]

  (3) if the Manual of Military Law Part III, is held by all military units; and what the policy is on Part III being held by units; [155916]

  (4) if all members of the armed forces (a) have issued to them and (b) have access to the Manual of Military Law Part III; and if he will make a statement; [155919]

  (5) what the legal status is of the Manual of Military Law; and if he will make a statement. [155915]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Manual of Military Law Part III (MML Pt III) was first published in 1958. MML Pt III is an academic legal text, a reference document for lawyers, and a detailed, if dated, commentary on the rules of war. In practice, the incorporation of legal requirement in
  197W
  Rules of Engagement, courses on international law at all levels at appropriate times, and cards setting out main war crimes issued to servicemen going into combat are all more relevant to servicemen than MML Pt III. As such, MML Pt III is only one way in which the Law of Armed Conflict is disseminated in the Army.

  There are no plans to reprint MML Pt III in its current form but it has not been withdrawn from circulation. Copies are still held at unit and formation level and further copies may be requested from the Central Services Establishment, Llangennech.

  MML Pt III is being completely rewritten as a Joint Service Publication (JSP 383) and will therefore cover the law of armed conflict applicable to land, sea and air operations. A timetable for publication and distribution has not yet been fixed as draft texts are still being considered.

  Army Recruits (Commonwealth)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on his plans to make greater use of the Commonwealth as a source of potential army recruits; which(a) countries and (b) specialities will be targeted; and what the budget of the recruitment exercise will be; [156793]

  (2) if the plans to make greater use of the Commonwealth as a source of potential army recruits will include the recruitment of Commonwealth nationals into (a) existing regiments and units or (b) new Commonwealth regiments and units; what pay and conditions will apply; and if he will make a statement; [156794]

  (3) if the plans to make greater use of the Commonwealth as a source of potential army recruits include recruitment from Commonwealth countries whose head of state is not Her Majesty the Queen; and if he will make a statement; [156795]

  (4) what oath of allegiance will be taken by non-British recruits from Commonwealth countries when they are enlisted into the British Army under the plans in the Strategy for the Army. [156797]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army has no plans to recruit actively from the Commonwealth and there is, therefore, no specific budget allocated to this area of recruitment. Applications are welcomed from Commonwealth citizens, subject to their meeting the normal entry criteria, irrespective of whether the Queen is head of state or not. Successful applicants are placed wherever vacancies exist according to their qualifications, performance at selection and preferences, where possible; there are no plans to institute "Commonwealth" regiments. Individuals enlist under the same terms and conditions of service as UK applicants and are required to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. The visits made to Fiji and St. Vincent and the Grenadines by army selection teams in 1999 and 2000 took place in order to process the large backlog of applications from these countries; no new recruitment was undertaken during these visits. The British Army has traditionally welcomed members of the Commonwealth as soldiers and officers. It is perhaps the spread of information via the world wide web and similar mediums that has increased the level of interest from overseas areas in recent months.
  198W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-British citizens from Commonwealth countries are serving in the armed forces other than in training or observation roles, in each case(a) the regiment or unit in which they serve, (b) the country of which they are a citizen and (c) the terms of service; and if he will make a statement. [156796]

  Mr. Spellar
  The table details the numbers of non-British citizens from Commonwealth countries serving in the Army by Arm/Corps as at 1 March 2001.

  Army Corps

  Total

  Household Cavalry

  7

  Royal Armoured Corps

  27

  Royal Artillery

  57

  Royal Engineers

  19

  Royal Signals

  23

  Footguards

  29

  Scots Division

  109

  Queens Division

  70

  Kings Division

  33

  Prince of Wales' Division

  76

  Light Division

  50

  Royal Irish (General Service)

  25

  Paratroopers

  60

  Army Air Corps

  9

  Royal Army Chaplains Division

  5

  Royal Logistical Corps

  84

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  37

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  14

  Adjutant General's Corps (Provost Branch)

  5

  Adjutant General's Corps (Staff and Personnel Support Branch)

  25

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  11

  Long Service List

  5

  Other

  21

  Grand total

  801

  The table details the country of which they are a citizen (as at 1 March 2001).

  Nationality

  Total

  Australia

  61

  Fiji

  373

  India

  12

  Jamaica

  34

  Kenya

  7

  Malta Gc

  6

  Canada

  62

  New Zealand

  51

  Trinidad and Tobago

  9

  Pakistan

  6

  Zimbabwe

  45

  South Africa

  70

  Other

  65

  Total

  801

  To ensure confidentiality under the Data Protection Act (1998) several Corps and nationalities were combined in the category 'Other' as categories with less than five entries cannot be published. The Corps combined include: Corps of Army Music, Army Physical Training Corps, Intelligence Corps, Adjutant General's Corps (Army Legal Service), Adjutant General's Corps Education and Training Service, Gurkhas, Staff, Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps and Royal Veterinary Corps.

  Non-British citizens from Commonwealth countries serve on the same terms of service as British citizens.
  199W
  It is not possible to publish data for the Royal Navy or RAF as details on nationality are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lairg Primary School
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he received the report of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist on its analysis of clothing taken from children at Lairg Primary School, Sutherland, following an incident on 15 February; and if he will make a statement. [156891]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I said in my letter of 8 March to the right hon. Member, the incident on 15 February at Lairg Primary School was being investigated. The report of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist was received by the RAF Police Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team (DFCIT) on 27 March. The results show no trace of any aviation product or noxious substance. The full DFCIT investigation into the incident is nearing completion and I will write once the RAF Police report is to hand.

  Type 22 Frigates
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made on the disposal of the remaining Type 22 frigates. [156675]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: Final disposal options on the remaining Type 22 frigates—HMS Boxer, HMS London and HMS Brave—are currently being considered. HMS Beaver, the first of the Type 22s declared surplus under the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, has been sold in a non-operational condition to the commercial market.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Council how many cases are under consideration by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the possible use of the death penalty; and if she will list the countries to which they relate. [156190]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There is a total of 16 cases, involving 19 persons under sentence of death, currently pending in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. These figures are made up as follows:Appeals heard and awaiting judgment: five (involving six persons)
  Appeals waiting to be heard: five (involving six persons)
  Petitions for special leave to appeal waiting to be heard: five (involving six persons)
  Petition granted, but appeal not yet registered: one.
  The cases come from Antigua and Barbuda (two cases), The Bahamas (two), Belize (three), Grenada (three), Jamaica (one), St. Lucia (one), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (one) and Trinidad and Tobago (three).

PRIME MINISTER

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what emergency powers he has to take action to halt the spread of foot and mouth disease, and which such powers he has exercised. [156121]

  The Prime Minister
  The Animal Health Act 1981 and the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 provide the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a wide range of powers to control the disease. These include powers:to detain the movement of animals and other things while conducting a veterinary inquiry into suspected disease
  to slaughter animals affected or suspected of being affected by disease or which have been in contact with infected animals or which have in any way been exposed to the infection of the disease
  to impose disease control rules to be observed within an infected place
  to impose infected area restrictions around an infected premises in accordance with EU rules
  to apply restrictions to animals exposed to disease
  to order the cleansing and disinfection of premises and vehicles
  to control the disposal of manure, slurry and litter in an infected area
  to require stray animals to be controlled in an infected area
  to control milk produced in an infected area
  to close footpaths ant prevent entry onto land (including roads) or premises in an infected area
  to prohibit certain sporting and recreational activities (such as hunting and point to point meetings) in an infected area
  to apply movement controls to or from slaughterhouses
  to apply movement restrictions on animals and other controls within a controlled area (which at present covers the whole of Great Britain)
  to prohibit hunting and stalking in a controlled area
  to prohibit the holding of fairs, markets, shows or other gatherings of animals.
  All these powers have been exercised at various junctures since the date of the first confirmation of the disease. They have been supplemented by the following measures:
  within a controlled area, the power to allow the Minister (or a local authority with the prior agreement of the Minister) to close roads
  granting a temporary casing of the drivers hours rules for various types of operation affected by foot and mouth (including the transport of animal feed, livestock, agricultural products, disinfectant and milk)
  restriction of exports to member states of certain products
  amended rules as regards the closure of footpaths and prohibited areas
  disinfection of tyres of road vehicles transported out of the UK
  establishment of a flat rate valuation for slaughtered animals.
  The scope of powers available is kept under constant review in the light of developments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Press Office
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many non-career civil servants there are in his Department's Press Office; in what position; and how much(a) they and (b) career civil servants of equivalent rank are paid. [156823]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: Two: Head of News and one Press Officer. Both officers' salaries fall within the pay scales appropriate to their grade. We do not disclose individual officers' salaries.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the procedure is for appointing non-career civil servants in his Department's Press Office. [156822]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: All recruitment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is conducted under the Civil Service Commissioner's Recruitment Rules. We either recruit using fair and open recruitment competitions, or make use of the flexibility allowed in the Commissioners' Recruitment Code for short term appointments of up to 12 months.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his(a) United Nations and (b) United States counterparts regarding non-military sanctions against Iraq. [156540]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: The Secretary of State holds regular discussions with US and other key allies on all aspects of Iraq policy, including that of non-military sanctions. UK representatives have regular contact with UN officials.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those EU member states which make a distinction between EU member states and candidate countries in the application of air passenger duty; and if he will make a statement. [156831]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to provide the information requested. Air passenger duty is specific to the UK. Other EU member states' air travel taxation systems do not operate on the same basis.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compatibility of proposed changes to air passenger duty with the Czech-UK Agreement on Air Services signed in Prague on 20 March 1998 [156829]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is the assessment of the UK Government that the changes to air passenger duty that were introduced on 1 April 2001 are compatible with the Czech Republic-UK Agreement on Air Services signed in Prague on 20 March 1998.
  202W
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if candidate countries to the European Union will be treated as EU member states for the purposes of air passenger duty from the time that the European Common Aviation Area multilateral agreement becomes applicable. [156830]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  Candidate countries to the European Union will be treated as EU member states for air passenger duty purposes only when they have completed the accessionary process.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on competitiveness of changes in air passenger duty on flights within the European Economic Area; and if he will make a statement. [156827]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The changes to air passenger duty implemented on 1 April 2001 should have a positive impact on the UK's competitiveness within the European Economic Area. For those passengers travelling economy class the duty is reduced to £5.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed in(a) the British Film Commission, (b) the Arts Council of England's Lottery Film Department, (c) the British Film Institute's Production Department, (d) British Screen Finance and (d) the British Film Institute; and how many were employed in April (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [156149]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The British Film Commission, Arts Council of England's Lottery Film Department and the British Film Institute's Production Department were absorbed into the Film Council on 1 April 2000. British Screen Finance transferred to the Film Council on 1 October 2000. The Film Council currently employs 73 staff.1

  Figures for preceding years are as follows:

  April 1999

  April 20002

  British Film Commission

  11

  11

  Arts Council of England's Lottery Film Department

  11

  13

  British Film Institute's Production Department

  9

  11

  British Screen Finance

  17

  15

  British Film Institute3

  445

  403

  Total

  541

  524

  1 The Film Council staff total takes into account staff for finance, business affairs, policy and industry training functions which previously either did or did not exist as activities or were functions undertaken by external lawyers and accountants or by other departments within the Arts Council or the British Film Institute.

  2 In respect of all but British Film Institute figures, these relate to the numbers of staff transferring into the Film Council on 1 April 2000.

  3 Figures are based on averages for the year. These figures exclude British Film Institute Production but include externally funded staff of 48 in 1999, 71 in 2000 and 83 at present: these staff are on fixed-term contracts and are funded by a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund for restoration work at the BFI Archive in Berkhamsted.

  Arts Funding (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding was available for the arts in Liverpool(a) since 1997 and (b) between 1993 and 1997. [156458]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For the financial years 1993–2000 the figures for grant in aid allocated to the arts in Liverpool are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993

  1,153,751

  1994

  1,678,132

  1995

  1,284,251

  1996

  1,648,064

  1997

  1,766,049

  1998

  1,712,828

  1999

  2,090,915

  2000

  14,112,172

  2001

  1—

  1Includes delegation of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra from the Arts Council of England

  2Figures for 2000–01 will not be available until the audited accounts are released later in the year

  The total Lottery allocation to Liverpool from 1995 to date has been £21,434,276. I have asked the Arts Council for a breakdown of this figure and will write to my hon. Friend when the information is available.

  Listed Sporting Events
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on paragraph 9 of the revised ITC code on sports and other listed events, regarding the Government's policy on listed sporting events. [156566]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government's policy is to ensure that free to air broadcasters, with a reach of at least 95 per cent. of the population, are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to acquire the rights to broadcast live coverage of "crown jewel" events. As paragraph 9 of the ITC code—last revised in January 2000—explains, it does not guarantee that the event will be broadcast live. Rights holders are not obliged to sell live rights and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show the events. However, any UK broadcaster that obtains the rights to live coverage of the whole or part of a listed event cannot broadcast exclusively live in the UK without first seeking the consent of the ITC.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on safari and wildlife parks. [156681]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: My Department has made no special assessment of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on safari and wildlife parks.

  However, my Department is in touch with the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, which includes wildlife and safari parks in its membership, about the implications of the foot and mouth outbreak. They have been involved in developing
  204W
  Government guidance on the circumstances in which visitor attractions should open. The Federation estimates that in the first four weeks of the outbreak, the zoo, wildlife and safar park sector lost approximately £3.5 million in revenue.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) policy and (b) legal reasons that prohibit his Department and its agencies from joining (i) the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System and (ii) the National Hunter System. [156473]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: We cannot join the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS) because it would entail DSS making data about claimants available to the private sector. Members of CIFAS seek their customers' consent to this. In the case of social security benefits, I am advised that making entitlement to benefits conditional upon claimants' giving consent to release of their personal data to organisations such as CIFAS would not constitute real consent, as the claimants often have no choice but to claim benefits from DSS. The alternative of releasing information only for those claimants that gave their consent would be valueless, as fraudsters would hardly be likely to give such consent.

  However, we have set up a working party with the private sector to examine what information held by the DSS could be made available within existing legal constraints.

  The National Hunter system is a computer software programme which checks for inconsistencies with respect to applications for mortgages. As we procure new IT we will build in the capability we require. The Department is specifying requirements and it is the suppliers' job to decide what form the solutions should take. The Department is deliberately not seeking to lead the suppliers in the direction of specific solutions.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the number of his Department's staff making home visits in the last year, (b) the total number of home visits made, (c) the total number of homes visited and (d) the number of such homes that were also visited by local authority staff in the same period. [156531]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is that for the period April 2000 to February 2001 when 1,251,280 home visits were made by 6,332 staff.

  Child Support
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he proposes to take in respect of the recent decisions of a social security commissioner in relation to the operation of the Social Security Act 1998
  205W
  and the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999; and it he will make a statement. [153384]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not propose to take any action in relation to these decisions.

  The Commissioner confirms the approach taken by decision makers in relation to the operation of the Social Security Act 1998 and the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999. That is, decision makers can make the decision to 'supersede at the same rate' where there is a change of circumstances but it does not change the existing award, and can refuse to supersede a decision where the application cannot possibly affect the existing award.

  The Commissioner also held that it is necessary for a new claim for benefit to be made, in all cases, before there can be a supersession for change of circumstances. It is our view that this was a ruling on a point of law which was incidental to the decisions reached, rather than a necessary part of the legal reasoning. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decisions on this point do not constitute binding rulings. For that reason we have decided not to appeal these decisions and we have not asked for existing guidance to decision makers to be altered.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his estimate is of the percentage of farmers who have had their farm livestock slaughtered as a consequence of foot and mouth disease who will be entitled to claim unemployment benefit. [156556]

  Angela Eagle
  No such estimate has been made.

  Pensions
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with pensioner organisations in Scotland about initiatives to inform older people of their rights. [156571]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers regularly meet representatives of pensioner organisations, including those based in Scotland. On 2 March 2001 we published a Scottish edition of our pensioners guide which provides information of a range of help and advice available to older people through central and local Government.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made since 1997 to pension and social security provision for pensioners living in poverty. [156575]

  Mr. Rooker
  The poorest pensioners will have gained from some or all of the extra increases in basic State Pension, tax allowances and Minimum Income Guarantee, together with Winter Fuel Payments and free TV licences.

  As a result of tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government, the poorest pensioner households on the MIG will, on average, be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms.

  Winter Fuel Allowance (Pa sley, South)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many over 60s in Paisley South qualify for the winter fuel allowance. [156862]
  206W
  Mr. Rooker
  Latest information shows that nearly 14,000 Winter Fuel Payments have been made in Paisley, South.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Rover Taskforce
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown of the costs of each of the projects involving the Rover taskforce and indicate how much of the funding allocated to it remains to be distributed. [156776]

  Mr. Byers
  The following is a list of projects which I have approved and which count against the £129 million (originally offered to BMW for investment at Longbridge) which I made available to support good quality projects in the West Midlands.

  £1

  Initial actions and administrative uplift for Advantage West Midlands (AWM)

  300,536

  Modernisation of the automotive base

  27,720,000

  Diversifying the regional economy

  20,152,000

  Support to the workforce2

  35,000

  Support to families and the community

  70,000

  Regenerating the area3

  22,250,000

  Grants offered to firms under the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) scheme

  37,250,000

  Support towards Staffordshire taskforce proposals

  1,973,000

  Acquisition of Industrial Land for the Automotive Sector

  10,000,000

  Proposals which are presently commercially sensitive

  9,000,000

  Total allocated against the £129 million

  128,750,536

  Total unallocated against the £129 million

  249,464

  1 Estimated cost

  2 This does not include expenditure by the Employment Service

  3 The regeneration projects arising from the Rover taskforce final report have not yet been approved as I am awaiting details of these proposals. However, an amount of £22,000,000 has been allocated to these proposals and will count against the £129 million

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155235]

  Mr. Byers
  Two meetings between DTI Ministers and hon. Members have been cancelled since 1 January 2001.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on BP Energy Ltd.'s proposal to build a combined heat and power gas-fired power station at the Jaguar works at Halewood. [157220]
  207W
  Mr. Byers
  I have today given consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to BP Energy Ltd. and clearance under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976, to build a 70 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Jaguar works at Halewood near Liverpool. Planning permission for the station was granted subject to 51 conditions agreed with Knowsley Metropolitan borough council.

  Combined heat and power plants are designed to produce both electricity and usable heat. They have environmental benefits due to their high levels of energy efficiency.

  The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to promote CHP, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to fulfil the promises we gave at Kyoto.

  The decision also shows the commitment of Ford to Merseyside as the power station will supply the current and future needs of the Jaguar works which will shortly be producing a new range.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Great Yarmouth Power Ltd.'s application to increase the size of the South Denes gas-fired power station. [157221]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today granted consent to increase the size of the South Denes 350 MW combined cycle gas turbine power station to 400 MW. The extension is a result of new technology which is more efficient than that originally proposed and will result in a reduction of emissions while delivering the same power.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Employment Tribunals (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions there are on his powers to appoint in Scotland chairmen and part-time chairmen of employment tribunals to Scottish advocates or solicitors only. [156792]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: Under regulations made by my Department, the appointment of chairmen and part-time chairmen of employment tribunals in Scotland is the responsibility of the Lord President of the Court of Session. The regulations stipulate that appointees must be advocates or solicitors of not less than seven years standing.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what period of office part-time chairmen of employment tribunals in Scotland are appointed; on what grounds such part-time chairmen may be removed from office; and what the procedures are for effecting such removal from office. [156791]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: Part-time chairmen of employment tribunals in Scotland are appointed for a term of five years, which is renewable. It would be for the Lord President of the Court of Session to consider whether any part-time chairman should be removed from office. In considering the case for a
  208W
  removal, he would be guided by the model rules of procedure on these matters as published by the Lord Chancellor last year. The procedure to be followed would be a matter for the Lord President in the light of his consideration of the circumstances of each case.

  Departmental Policies (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the High Peak constituency of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [156780]

  Mr. Caborn
  The constituency of High Peak has benefited from a range of initiatives since May 1997 including:Regional Selective Assistance—a discretionary grant which provides assistance towards capital projects which would not otherwise go ahead and will create or safeguard employment in an Assisted Area. Until 31 December 1999 the High Peak area was in an Assisted Area and up to this date grants totalling £455,000 were offered to three companies supporting total capital expenditure of £3,523,000 with the aim of safeguarding 30 existing full-time jobs and creating in excess of 80 new full-time jobs.
  Enterprise Grant—a new discretionary grant introduced in 2000. Provides support to SMEs investing in capital projects which would not otherwise go ahead. Although SMEs investing in capital projects in the Peveril ward of High Peak district council, no grants have yet been awarded in this area.
  Smart—discretionary grant available to SMEs to help them develop technologically innovative products and processes. Grant totalling £346,857 has been offered to six projects supporting total projects costs in excess of £837,000.
  Business Link—the Business Link network provides a wide range of business advice and support to SMEs. It is not possible to accurately isolate Business Link data for the High Peak constituency area. However, from 1997 to date, Business Link North Derbyshire, which now includes the High Peak constituency, has helped a total of 4.987 businesses and assisted 1,422 business start ups.
  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)—in addition to its domestic initiatives, the Department of Trade and Industry is also the lead Department for European Structural Funds in the UK. Under ERDF Objective 5b (1994–1999) and the LEADER II Community Initiative, High Peak has benefited from £1.23 million. The projects supported have delivered a range of industrial premises, business support and small community projects.
  I understand that my hon. Friend has also asked a similar question in respect of DETR policies and programmes.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been registered by ex-miners suffering from respiratory disease who are resident in the constituencies of(a) Caerphilly, (b) Llanelli, (c) Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, (d) Neath, (e) Clwyd South, (f) Wrexham and (g) Pontypridd. [155645]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, do not collect data by constituency. The following information is collated by reference to the postcodes most closely mapping onto the constituencies in question. The number of claims in respect of respiratory disease in the areas defined by these postcodes are listed in the table:

  209W

  Constituency within defined area

  Postcode defined area

  Number of claims for respiratory disease

  Caerphilly

  CF 46, 81–83 NP 1

  3,231

  Llanelli

  SA 14–17

  1,308

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney Neath

  NP 2–3; CF 41, 46–48

  3,635

  Neath

  SA 8–11, 18

  3,636

  Clwyd South

  LL 13–14, 20–21; SY 10

  516

  Wrexham

  LL 11–13

  502

  Pontypridd

  CF 37–39

  2,122

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation for respiratory disease have been made by ex-miners living in the constituencies of(a) Aberavon, (b) Newport, East, (c) Ogmore, (d) Blaenau Gwent, (e) Bridgend, (f) Rhondda, (g) Islwyn and (h) East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. [155642]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, do not collect data by constituency. The information is collated by reference to the postcodes most closely mapping onto the constituencies in question. The number of claims in respect of respiratory disease in the areas defined by these postcodes are listed in the table:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Agriculture, forestry

  10

  10

  10

  30

  Mining, quarrying; electricity, gas and water supply

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manufacturing

  15

  10

  5

  30

  Construction

  20

  40

  30

  90

  Wholesale, retail & repairs

  65

  65

  55

  185

  Hotels, restaurants

  40

  35

  45

  120

  Transport, storage & communications

  10

  15

  5

  30

  Financial intermediation

  0

  5

  0

  5

  Real estate, renting & business activities

  80

  85

  90

  255

  Public administration; other community, social & personal services

  20

  20

  10

  50

  Education; health & social work

  5

  5

  0

  10

  All Sectors

  265

  290

  250

  805

  Source:

  Business start-ups and closures: VAT registrations and de-registrations, National Statistics.

  During the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999 some 755 businesses in Shrewsbury and Atcham left the VAT register.

  During the same period therefore, the stock of VAT registered businesses in Shrewsbury and Atcham increased by 50 (1.7 per cent). The equivalent percentage increase for the West Midlands region was 1.2 per cent. and for the UK 3.4 per cent.

  NETA
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the terms of reference are of the review of the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators; and when he will publish its conclusions; [156237]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that NETA does not prejudice combined heat and power schemes. [156234]

  Mr. Hain
  In consultation with the industry, ways have been developed to ensure that smaller generators are 210W

  Constituency within defined area

  Postcode defined area

  Number of claims for respiratory disease

  Aberavon

  SA 11–13, CF 34, 42

  2,983

  Newport, East

  NP 26, 9

  22

  Ogmore

  CF 32, 34, 35, 72

  2,915

  Blaenau Gwent

  NP 3, 23

  642

  Bridgend

  CF 33, 31, 35, 32

  1,983

  Rhondda

  CF 40, 42–44

  2,563

  Islwyn

  NP 1, 3

  177

  East Carmarthen and Dinefwr

  SA 17–20, 31–33, 38–39, 44

  1,530

  New Businesses (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the number of new businesses in each industrial category started in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156512]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of businesses, by broad industrial sector, joining the VAT register in the Shrewsbury and Atcham local authority district in each of the last three years for which data are available, is set out in the table.

  be able to trade effectively under NETA, which was implemented on 27 March. These include the ability for a licence-exempt generator to consolidate the output of its plant with that of the plant of other licence-exempt generators in order to reduce any potential exposure to imbalance.

  However, in the light of the continuing concern among some smaller generators about the potential impact of NETA on their businesses, I announced in February that I had asked Ofgem to undertake a review of the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators, based on its first two months of live operation.

  Ofgem are planning to submit draft terms of reference for this review to me shortly, and they will be published once I have approved them. The issue of timing will be addressed in the terms of reference. The continuing success of combined heat and power and renewables is very important to the Government and Ofgem are well aware of their own regulatory responsibility in this respect.

  Company Rescue
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the responses to the report of the joint DTI/Treasury working group on company rescue and business reconstruction mechanisms. [157150]

  Mr. Byers
  The report of the working group, which was published in November 2000, was followed by a further consultation period, which has now concluded. It will take some time to digest the responses from consultees and firm up our ideas on these proposals. In the interim, I have decided to publish the responses and copies have now been placed in the Library of each House and will appear shortly on the website of my Department's Insolvency Service.

  Post Office
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursant to his answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 234–35W, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Post Office Chief Executive's answer to his letter of 17 November 2000. [149219]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The Post Office Chief Executive has been consulted and has said that his letter was not intended for publication and he does not consider it appropriate to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Statutory Right to Contract
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what work his Department has carried out on examining the effectiveness of the operation of the statutory right to contract legislation. [R] [155790]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: I understand the hon. Member is referring to the statutory right of interest legislation.

  We have continued to monitor payment times in the UK since the introduction of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Recent surveys have provided encouraging signs of improvement.

  Research published by Dun and Bradstreet last month shows that UK companies are now the second fastest in Europe for paying their bills on time. Although all national performances have improved since the previous surveys, UK companies produced the greatest improvement, identifying a continuing downward trend in UK payment times in recent years.

  In addition, a quarterly survey published by the Credit Management Research Centre in March 2001 indicated a continued improvement in payment culture with larger firms exhibiting the most improved payment behaviour.

  Radioactively Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the nuclear sites operated by(a) BNFL, (b) the UKAEA and (c) British Energy which contain areas of radioactively contaminated land; and what steps have been taken to remediate contaminated areas on each respective site. [156400]
  212W
  Mr. Hain
  BNFL operates nuclear licensed sites at Sellafield, Springfields, Capenhurst, Drigg, and Chapelcross and Hunterston A nuclear power stations. Magnox Electric plc (a subsidiary of BNFL) operates Sizewell A, Bradwell, Dungeness A, Oldbury, Berkeley, Hinkley Point A, Wylfa and Trawsfynydd nuclear power stations.

  British Energy operates Torness, Hunterston B, Hartlepool, Sizewell B, Dungeness B, Hinkley Point B, Heysham 1 and Heysham 2 nuclear power stations.

  UKAEA operates sites at Dounreay, Harwell, Windscale and Winfrith.

  I understand from HSE that all these sites may have areas of radioactively contaminated land. Nuclear site licensees are responsible for the safe management of all radioactive material on their sites. They are also required to manage areas of contaminated land in accordance with the conditions of the nuclear site licence so that such areas do not present a hazard to the work force or to the public. I understand that BNFL, BE and UKAEA will write to my hon. Friend shortly with information on their contamination remediation procedures.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate how many regulations affecting business have been repealed since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156503]

  Mr. Stringer
  I have been asked to reply.

  An estimate of the total number of regulations affecting business that have been repealed since 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, since 1997, 23 deregulation orders have been made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (DCOA).

  The Government are determined to minimise the burden of regulation on business. That is why we are taking through Parliament a Regulatory Reform Bill, which builds on the powers of the DCOA and will make it easier to reform outdated, over-complex or overlapping legislation. We have already identified over 50 reforms that could be achieved by this means.

  Each Department already has a continuing programme of regulatory reform. The DTI, for example, is reviewing several significant areas of regulation, including communications and company law, and is actively seeking to add to the five potential regulatory reform orders it has already proposed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Retirements
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police officers have retired as a result of ill health in each year since 1990. [154512]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]: Figures for medical retirements between 1990–91 and 1999–2000 are set out in the table.
  213W

  Year

  Medical retirements as a percentage of all retirements

  1990–91

  62

  1991–92

  62

  1992–93

  60

  1993–94

  53

  1994–95

  53

  1995–96

  46

  1996–97

  45

  1997–98

  47

  1998–99

  39

  1999–2000

  31

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) funded and (b) actual police officers there were in the Essex Constabulary in each year from March 1997 to the latest date for which figures are available. [154484]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: The information requested is set out in the table. The funded police numbers have been provided by the Chief Constable of the Essex Police.

  The Home Office Statistical Bullet in on police service strength provides numbers of police officers available for ordinary duty, as opposed to all officers in each force. Officers on secondment, for example, on maternity leave or undertaking full-time further education, are excluded from the figures. This is the basis used in the table for the number of actual police officers.

  Essex police—funded police posts and actual police numbers

  Year

  Number of funded policed posts (fte)

  Actual number of police officers (fte)

  31 March 1997

  2,944

  2,961

  31 March 1998

  2,947

  2,928

  31 March 1999

  2,92

  2,891

  31 March 2000

  2,859

  2,806

  31 March 2001

  2,955

  12,859

  1 Numbers as at 31 January 2001. The force returns for strength as at 31 March 2001 for the purposes of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin are not yet available.

  Fte=Full-time equivalent.

  The force strength (actual numbers) figures for 31 March 1997 and as at 7 February 2001, set out in my answer to the hon. Member on 15 February 2001, Official Report, column 240W, were obtained from the Chief Constable of the force. Upon inquiry, it appears that the force classified some officers differently from the method used under Home Office counting rules for the half yearly Statistical Bulletin. This is the reason for the differences between the numbers in that answer and the numbers given here.

  Fire Service
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reviews on the future of the Fire Service are in progress; when he will make announcements on them; and if he will make a statement. [156773]
  214W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have a continuing programme of work in partnership with fire service and other interests to modernise the fire service, to reduce the incidence of fire and related death, injury and damage and to ensure the safety of the public. Details are set out in the Home Office Annual Report for 2000–01 (Cm 5106). We are also listening to the views of the Fire Community on the wider future of fire services.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to refuse relocation under the National Asylum Support Service allocation rules on grounds of severe clinical depression. [156471]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Dispersal is only considered where the asylum seeker has requested that accommodation be provided as part of an application for support. A decision on whether dispersal is appropriate is taken by the National Asylum Support Service after full and careful consideration of all the known facts. Any medical advice that dispersal is inappropriate would also be taken into account.

  Grants (London Boroughs)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) each category of grant and (b) the amount of each grant paid by his Department to each London borough in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–1999, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [155430]

  Mr. Straw
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Anti-semitism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on anti-Semitic incidents in the last six months; and what representations he has received on the causes of such incidents. [156562]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Anti-Semitic incidents are not recorded separately by the Home Office. The police in the year 1999–2000 recorded 47,814 racist incidents. The Board of Deputies of British Jews recorded some 221 anti-Semitic incidents in the six months from September 2000 to February 2001.

  I have not received any specific representations on the causes of such incidents. I have, with my ministerial colleagues, met with representatives of the Jewish and Muslim communities in the last six months to discuss concerns that the situation in the Middle East should not lead to a breakdown in the good relations between the communities in the United Kingdom.

  West Mercia Constabulary (Shrewsbury Division)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the use of anti-social behaviour orders in the Shrewsbury Division of West Mercia constabulary. [156505]
  215W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not monitor the effectiveness of individual orders centrally. However, I understand from West Mercia police that six anti-social behaviour orders have been issued in the Shrewsbury Division. The orders have all been very effective. Four of them have been targeted on the ringleaders of a gang threatening residents in a village within the Division. Since the orders have been in force, the anti-social behaviour has stopped, and the remaining members of the gang have dispersed.

  This is a fine example of what we set out to achieve with anti-social behaviour orders, and I congratulate West Mercia police on obtaining them.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to(a) the Police, (b) local authorities and (c) landowners in order to control dogs in the countryside; and if he will undertake a review of these powers. [156712]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971, where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring livestock, any person who is a keeper of the dog is liable for the damage. If a dog trespasses onto another's land then if the owner allowed the dog to trespass wilfully or to search for game, the owner is liable for any damage to the owner's livestock.

  Under section 9 of the 1971 Act a landowner or the owner of the livestock or an employee of the landowner or the owner of the livestock has a defence to killing or injuring a dog worrying livestock if either:
  the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending of preventing the worrying; or
  the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

  The collection and detention of stray dogs is provided for under sections 149–150 of the Environment Protection Act 1990. Animal wardens are authorised officers under the Act and undertake work on behalf of the local authority which is their employer. The police also accept stray dogs when they are brought into police stations. Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that d9gs be kept on a leash on public roads, and local authorities can make byelaws to require that dogs be kept on a leash in certain parks. public gardens and amenity areas.

  Any dogs in an area infected with foot and mouth disease must be kept under control by their owners. This means that they must either:
  be kept in a kennel or enclosure from which they cannot escape; or
  be effectively secured to a fixed object by a collar and chain; or
  be accompanied by and under the effectual control of the owner or a responsible person authorised by the owner.

  In an area declared to be infected with foot and mouth disease a dog must not run free; if it does, it can be seized by the local authority or the police and treated as a stray.

  In addition, a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Inspector may serve a notice on anyone in the infected area to keep a dog under specific controls.
  216W
  Dogs which are kept under proper control are not prevented from being moved. Certain sporting activities involving dogs are not allowed in areas infected with foot and mouth disease.

  The need for additional powers to deal with foot and mouth is being kept under constant review. This includes the control of dogs in infected areas.

  There are no plans to review the wider law relating to the control of dogs in the countryside, although the measures in place to combat the spread of foot and mouth disease are being kept under constant review.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to give additional powers to(a) tilt Police, (b) local authorities and (c) landowners in order to control dogs in the countryside during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156711]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Any dogs in an area infected with Foot and Mouth Disease must be kept under control by their owners. This means that they must either:be kept in a kennel or enclosure from which they cannot escape; or
  be effectively secured to a fixed object by a collar and chain; or
  be accompanied by, and under the effectual control of, the owner or a responsible person authorised by the owner.

  In an area declared to be infected with Foot and Mouth Disease a dog must not run free; if it does, it can be seized by the local authority or the police and treated as a stray.

  In addition, a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Inspector may serve a notice on anyone in the infected area to keep a dog under specific controls.

  Dogs which are kept under proper control are not prevented from being moved. Certain sporting activities involving dogs are not allowed in areas infected with Foot and Mouth Disease.

  The need for additional powers to deal with Foot and Mouth is being kept under constant review. This includes the control of dogs in infected areas.

  Visitor Numbers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the cost of counting visitors into and out of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [155587]

  Mrs. Roche
  A precise figure is not available, but the cost of recording electronically the admissions and departures of all non-European Economic Area nationals is provisionally estimated to be around £20 million a year. This estimate includes the costs of reintroducing embarkation controls, which were discontinued in 1998.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government will pay the additional cost to abattoirs of higher veterinary costs and those arising from the removal of(a) manure, (b) lorry solids and (c) guts and blood following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153891]
  217W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: The Government have agreed that they Ix ill pay for the more intensive ante mortem inspections and supervision of cleansing and disinfection of wagons that is currently being carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Slaughterhouses, as with any other premises where livestock are kept, may need to comply with statutory requirements for the removal of manure, lorry solids and guts and blood, as part of the controls in place to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak. There are no plans for Government to reimburse costs associated with these functions.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ban the import of meat and meat products from countries outside the EU(a) where foot and mouth disease is (i) prevalent and (ii) suspected and (b) where antibodies may be present in animals as a result of vaccination. [154824]

  Ms Quin
  The importation of mea is permitted from a limited number of third countries where foot and mouth disease is present and where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specified regions. EC rules permit imports from those regions of the relevant countries that are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose an FMD risk, may in some cases be imported from other regions subject to veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. Because of their FMD situation, prohibitions are currently in place on imports from South Africa, Swaziland and Argentina; countries from which imports were previously permitted. All meat imported from third countries is subject to veterinary checks at Border Inspection Posts to ensure that import requirements are met.

  There are no controls relating specifically to the presence of antibodies as a result of vaccination. However import of meat from countries which vaccinate is subject to controls and certification to ensure that the beef is matured and boneless and that meat from pigs and ruminants other than bovines comes from unvaccinated animals from an FMD free region.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports his Department received in December 2000 of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and what actions he took. [154928]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: No outbreaks or suspected cases of fool and mouth disease were reported in December 2000.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures were taken by his Department to deal with any outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom prior to the public announcements made on 19 February in response to the infection reported at a Brentwood abattoir. [154851]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: Prior to the current outbreak, the most recent case of foot and mouth disease in the UK was in 1981 when there was one isolated case on the Isle of Wight.
  218W
  The Ministry has contingency plans for dealing with foot and mouth disease and these have been subject to regular review.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if his Department received unconfirmed reports of possible foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom during 2000; [154957]

  (2) what procedures his Department had in place to deal with unconfirmed reports of cases of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom over the 12 months up to 19 February; [154961]

  (3) what investigations were carried out in respect of each unconfirmed report received by his Department of a case of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom over the 12 months up to 19 February. [154955]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: Any person who suspects that an animal may be affected by foot and mouth disease is required by the Foot and Mouth Order 1983 to notify the Ministry. Similar arrangements apply in Northern Ireland. Any such notification would immediately result in veterinary investigations being undertaken. No cases of suspected foot and mouth disease were reported to the Agriculture Departments over the 12 months up to 19 February 2001.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information was passed to EU officials by his Department regarding outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2000. [154850]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: There were no outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom during 2000. In consequence no information regarding outbreaks was passed to EU officials.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if(a) he, (b) ministerial colleagues or (c) officials were informed of (i) suspected cases of and (ii) increased risk of foot and mouth in the period three months prior to its first identification in Brentwood on 19 February. [155269]

  Ms Quin
  No suspected cases were reported to the Ministry in the period three months prior to 19 February. The Ministry first became aware of a suspected case of foot and mouth in pigs at an abattoir in Essex on 19 February and subsequently confirmed disease on the evening of 20 February. My right hon. Friend the Minister was informed of these developments on the days they occurred.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of studies published on the effectiveness of disinfectants in destroying the foot and mouth virus. [155159]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: Only disinfectants approved by MAFF for use against foot and mouth disease can be used for statutory purposes laid down in Foot and Mouth Disease Orders made under the Animal Health Act 1981. These disinfectants have all been tested for efficacy against live foot and mouth disease virus at the Institute for Animal Health, in accordance with a standard test protocol, and have been found to be efficacious at the dilution rates at which they are approved for use.
  219W
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possible linkage between cull sows imported from abroad and the current outbreak of foot and mouth; and if he will make a statement. [155303]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: There is no evidence of such a link at this stage but investigations into the source of the current outbreak are continuing.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department was first informed of the presence of the foot and mouth virus in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [155302]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The Ministry first became aware of a suspected case of foot and mouth in pigs at an abattoir in Essex on 19 February and subsequently confirmed the disease on the evening of 20 February.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the time taken between diagnosing animals as being infected with foot and mouth disease and the taking of effective action. [155076]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Our objective is to slaughter infected animals within 24 hours of the disease having been reported. In the majority of areas we are now meeting this target but due to the sheer numbers involved it has not been possible to meet it in all cases.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of road mats treated with disinfectant as a means of preventing the spread of the virus causing foot and mouth disease; [155074]

  (2) what guidance he has issued on the effectiveness of disinfectant mats as a means of preventing the spread of the foot and mouth virus. [1550751

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Road mats treated with disinfectant provide a limited measure of protection against the spread of the FMD virus as they only apply disinfectant to the tyre treads of vehicles passing over them. The best method of disinfection is the combination of thorough cleansing, preferably with a pressure hose, followed by the use of an approved disinfectant applied to all exposed surfaces using a hose or spray.

  The advice to people working or travelling in the countryside contained in Public Information Factsheets and on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/ makes it clear that vehicles should be thoroughly cleansed and thoroughly disinfected, and explains that this is best achieved by using a hose or spray to apply disinfectant.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has authorised for the control of vermin during the foot and mouth outbreak. [155939]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: MAFF have a contract with the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency to carry out measures to control vermin on infected premises.
  220W
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Government contingency plan there was for an outbreak of foot and mouth in the United Kingdom; and when it was last revised. [155793]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: MAFF has contingency plans for dealing with outbreaks of serious animal disease. These include detailed operational instructions for use by the State Veterinary Service. The plan for foot and mouth was updated and submitted to the European Commission in July 2000.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date(a) an official and (b) a Minister was first alerted to the (i) possibility of the first suspected case and (ii) confirmation of the first case of foot and mouth disease. [155937]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: MAFF first became aware of a suspect case of foot and mouth disease on 19 February and of its confirmation on the evening of 20 February. The Minister was so informed on those dates.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the retail and wholesale meat trades about the effect on their financial situation of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement on possible temporary relief. [156143]

  Ms Quin
  We have received a number of representations from various sectors of the meat supply chain. Organisations representing meat wholesalers are currently quantifying the extent of losses resulting from FMD and Government will consider any submission they may subsequently make.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist farmers who are running out of fodder who would normally turn out their cattle in April and may be prevented from doing so by movement restrictions. [156218]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: A range of options is available to farmers whose stock are short of food, or facing other welfare threats, as a result of FMD movement restrictions. We have produced advisory material on how to safeguard animal welfare in such circumstances; and we have introduced a scheme to license movements both locally, and over longer distances, for welfare reasons. Finally, the livestock welfare (disposal) scheme provides an outlet for those animals that are prevented from moving as normal and are consequently at risk of suffering. Farmers will receive payment for most classes of stock entered to the scheme. Proper care and feeding of livestock remains the responsibility of farmers.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the loss of foot and mouth disease-free status on trade in cattle and beef products. [156013]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: As a result of the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease, UK exports of a range of agricultural products including cattle, beef and beef products have been prohibited. However, the amount it of UK beef exported in recent years

  221W
  has been very low as a consequence of BSE. In 2000 some 8,600 tonnes were exported at a value of £24 million. There were no exports of live animals.

  Arable Farms Subsidy Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he forecasts in the subsidy regime affecting arable farmers from 2001 to 2005. [155780]

  Ms Quin
  Under the Agenda 2000 agreement the cereals regime is due to be reviewed in 2002. In those discussions, which will also cover a number of other sectors, the Government will continue to press their CAP reform agenda, with a view to improving the balance of supply and demand and bringing EU prices closer to world levels.

  Herbivore Farm Animals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that herbivore farm animals are not fed animal by-products; and if he will make a statement. [155965]

  Ms Quin
  It is already an offence under the Animal By-Products Order 1999, to feed to ruminants either catering waste containing meat or meat products or unprocessed animal by-products.

  Mammalian meat and bone meal may not be fed to any farmed animals. Draft legislation prohibiting the feeding of poultry and fish meal to ruminants had been prepared.

  Subsidy Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how widespread is the practice of moving sheep from farm to farm in order to collect subsidy fraudulently; and if he will make a statement. [156072]

  Ms Quin
  We are aware of the possibility of such practices occurring and my staff are it strutted to look for evidence of this when carrying out on farm inspections to check sheep subsidy claims.

  We have no evidence that such practices are widespread. In England in 2000 we initiated prosecution procedures in two such cases.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will investigate the prices being paid to farmers by abattoirs; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that abattoirs do not exploit their monopoly position. [156135]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]: The added costs involved in the livestock slaughter scheme currently being absorbed by the abattoir sector are substantial and these have to be taken into account. These costs include the reduction in throughput due to cleaning and disinfection procedures in the lairage, more thorough ante and post mortem inspections for foot and mouth disease and reduced supplies of available livestock. MAFF is now aware that abattoirs are operating as a monopoly but any evidence of this should be reported to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Pigfeed
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that meat and bonemeal is not fed to pigs; what enforcement measures exist; and if he will make a statement. [156157]

  Ms Quin
  In March 1996 the use of mammalian meat and bonemeal (MMBM) was banned in all feed for farmed animals.

  Responsibility for enforcement rests with local authorities. In addition, the State Veterinary Service carries out a feed sampling programme, which involves the collection and testing, for the presence of mammalian protein, of 20,000 feed samples a year to ensure compliance.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries from which the import and sale of beef is considered unsafe on animal health grounds; and if he will make a statement. [156382]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: Specific restrictions on imports of beef from Portugal, France, Netherlands, Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Swaziland and Argentina are currently in place because of the disease situations in those countries. Beef may be imported from other EM member states in accordance with community rules. Beef may only be imported into any EU member state from third countries that have been approved by the European Commission and it must come from approved premises in those countries. Those approved third countries which currently have approved establishments are set out in the table shown. Beef cannot be imported into the UK from any third country which is not on this list.

  Australia

  Brazil

  Botswana

  Canada

  Croatia

  Czech Republic

  Hungary

  Malta

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Paraguay

  Poland

  Romania

  Slovakia

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Switzerland

  Yugoslavia

  Zimbabwe.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of(a) Government and (b) EU subsidy the agricultural sector received in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [156266]
  223W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: The following table sets out (a) total CAP expenditure in the UK, (b) the UK Exchequer funded element of CAP expenditure, and (c) national expenditure on other agricultural grants and subsidies, for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  £ million

  Total CAP expenditure in the UK

  -of which: UK Exchequer funded

  Other national expenditure on agricultural grants and subsidies

  1996–97

  4,203

  75

  40

  1997–98

  3,455

  91

  37

  1998–99

  3,350

  105

  26

  1999–2000

  2,992

  139

  30

  2000–01

  3,005

  144

  34

  Note:

  The second column of data does not include the UK Exchequer contribution to expenditure on HLCA's (Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances), although total expenditure on HLCA's is included in the first column.

  Flooding
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to(a) compensate and (b) assist riparian owners for repair and maintenance of river banks and islands for damage caused by flood water. [156437]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The repair and maintenance of watercourses and surrounding land is the responsibility of the riparian owner, though on some rivers such work is undertaken by the relevant flood defence operating authority, that is the Environment Agency, local authority or internal drainage board.

  Veterinary Service
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) vets and (b) support staff there were in the veterinary service in (i) 1971, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 2001. [156467]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the State Veterinary Service in 1971 could be identified only at disproportionate cost. The other information sought (full-time equivalents) is as follows:

  1979–597

  1997–289

  2001–2861.

  1The State Veterinary Service currently employs as permanent staff 286 veterinary surgeons of whom 220 are field veterinary officers.

  The numbers of MAFF officials involved in support also could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention that farmers filing their IACS returns by electronic mail may prevent their names and addresses from being published in commercial directories. [156679]
  224W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: IACS applicants are now able to submit their 2001 IACS forms electronically. This new electronic service from MAFF will deliver much more than a simple e-mail. The forms have built in intelligence, which checks the validity and consistency of the data entered, and calculates totals automatically. There is also an on-line help facility which will guide applicants through completion of the forms. We hope this will make it easier and quicker to complete the forms, and at the same time reduce the scope for making errors.

  The electronic IACS service is secure. Applicants will only be able to view their own data, and will submit their forms using their own unique digital signature, which also encrypts the data sent. An acknowledgement that their forms have been submitted successfully will be received electronically within minutes.

  Data captured for IACS through this new electronic service are subject to the same requirements for confidentiality as the paper IACS forms and we do not publish or otherwise make these details available to commercial interests.

  Hill Farm Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors he took into account in changing the minimum land holding for grant qualification by introducing the hill farm allowance. [156865]

  Ms Quin
  In deciding to increase the minimum area requirement from 3 ha to 10 ha we took account of comments received during public consultation and of an independent evaluation of the previous hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. This suggested that very small farms are less in need of aid than farms in higher size categories. They are less likely to be full-time farm businesses and have a significantly higher proportion of occupiers with off-farm income.

WALES

  National Health Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss the NHS in Wales. [155497]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Minister and the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary to discuss the NHS in Wales.

  Census
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary and the First Secretary on the census in Wales. [155499]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of subjects, including this one. The census in England and Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have therefore had no discussions with the Home Secretary of this issue.

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to tourism in Wales. [155500]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister. In light of the current situation with foot and mouth disease, tourism has of course figured prominently in their discussions.

  I represent the Wales Office on the Government's rural taskforce, a body on which the Assembly is also represented. As a result of the work of this taskforce, several initiatives have been announced to assist tourism and rural industries more generally where they have been affected by foot and mouth disease.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary to discuss the outbreak of foot and mouth in Monmouthshire. [155501]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues and accompanied him, my hon. Friend for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and the Prime Minister to Usk yesterday, where we met representatives of the farming and tourism industries.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy in Wales. [155511]

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the agriculture and tourism industries in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [155517]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on a variety of issues including foot and mouth disease and last Sunday we jointly visited areas of Wales affected

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the UK Government rural taskforce set up to examine the effect of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease across the rural economy as a whole. Following the initial meetings of this taskforce, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 20 March a package of UK wide measures to help businesses cope with the campaign to get the public back to areas of the countryside which they can safely visit and an immediate package of short-term practical help for rural businesses, involving the Small Business Service and the banks. These initiatives are in addition to the £156 million agrimonetary compensation announced by the Government for the sheep, beef and dairy sectors (over the £15 million compulsory agrimonetary aid) and two future years of funding for outgoers under the pig industry restructuring scheme, worth £40 million, which has been made available this year.

  In addition, the National Assembly for Wales has already issued a Tourism Charter and announced a £1.5 million marketing package through the Wales Tourist Board aimed at reassuring visitors to Wales. The Assembly has also made available £12 million to local authorities to enable them to grant rate relief to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease, £1 million additional
  226W
  funding to help the agri-food sector in Wales recover from the effects of foot and mouth disease, and £0.5 million to match pound for pound voluntary donations from the public to help relieve rural distress.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Agriculture Secretary with regard to foot and mouth disease in Wales. [155515]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had regular discussions recently with the Welsh Agriculture Secretary with regard to the impact of foot and mouth disease in Wales and last Sunday he and I visited affected areas in Wales with the National Assembly First Secretary.

  All efforts are focused on taking action to ensure the disease is contained and eradicated as quickly as possible. The action that is being taken is severe but the best way to beat the outbreak.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions with regard to foot and mouth disease in Wales. [155516]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on a variety of issues.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the UK Government rural taskforce, chaired by the Minister for the Environment, set up to examine the effect of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease across the rural economy as a whole.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Minister for Agriculture about outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Wales. [155518]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture in regard to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Wales.

  Our strategy is still to ensure that all animals on infected farms are culled within 24 hours of report and animals on neighbouring farms culled within 48 hours. All efforts are focused on taking action to ensure the disease is contained and eradicated as quickly as possible. The action that is being taken is severe but the best way to beat the outbreak.

  Corus (Redundancies)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning estimates of the number of redundancies proposed by Corus in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [155502]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met the First Secretary regularly over the past few weeks to discuss issues facing the steel industry in Wales, including the threat of closures and redundancies at Corns plants in Wales.

  I welcome the outcome of last week's discussions between Corus and the trade unions. The Government have indicated their willingness to support a scheme of retraining by approaching the European Commission and other member states for their approval.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss trunk roads in Wales. [155503]

  Mr. Hanson
  Welsh trunk roads are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, in discussion with the lead Whitehall Department in cases where decisions affect communities on the English/Welsh border.

  Although my right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on transport issues and I have regular meetings with the National Assembly Minister for the Environment and Transport, we would only become directly involved in trunk road matters if we were asked to intervene to help resolve a difficulty.

  Waste Incinerator (Wrexham)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect on people living in Cheshire of the proposals for a waste incinerator at Wrexham. [155504]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Any planning proposal is rightly a matter for the relevant local authority. In certain circumstances, such planning applications may be called in by the National Assembly for Wales.

  I understand that the public inquiry on this application took evidence from a significant number of individuals and groups on all aspects of the case and that views of Cheshire residents were well represented.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the progress of the Government's policy on reducing hospital waiting lists. [155505]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Health Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales.

  Like the Government, the National Assembly is making the reduction of waiting lists a priority but it is for them to decide how they go about it. Significant funding has been allocated for this purpose and last year the Assembly Health Secretary set targets for health authorities to meet.

  Welsh Language (Departmental Policy)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy and practice is on the use of the Welsh language for official purposes within his Department. [155506]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office is committed to treating the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality. Office publications, such as the Departmental Report and Service Delivery Agreement, are already made available in both languages. The office will always reply in Welsh to anyone who writes in Welsh and telephone calls in Welsh are always transferred to a Welsh speaker where available. If no Welsh speaker is available at the time of the call, the call can be returned later by a Welsh speaker.
  228W
  The Wales Office is committed to doing more to provide a fully bilingual service to the people of Wales, and to that end, the office plans to publish a draft Welsh Language Scheme for consultation during 2001.

  New Deal
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about extending the new deal in Wales. [155507]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with my Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues, including the New Deal.

  In his Budget statement on 7 March, the Chancellor announced a strengthening of the Government's Welfare to Work Programme through the extension of the already successful New Deal scheme.

  The schemes to benefit from this extension will be: New Deal 25+—this will make all over-25s who have been on Jobseekers Allowance for at least 18 months eligible for the New Deal; New Deal for Lone Parents—the extension will potentially help around 50,000 lone parents in Wales; New Deal for Disabled People—which will be extended to all those claiming invalidity benefit.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with pensioners' organisations in Wales about pensions and benefits for the elderly in Wales. [155508]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with pensioners' organisations in Wales about pension levels and take-up of the Minimum Income Guarantee. [155514]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met the National Association of Pensioners in Wales on 7 June last year to discuss pensions, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met members of the Age Concern focus groups recently to discuss a range of issues affecting older people in Wales.

  This Government are committed to delivering real improvements to ensure that pensioners have a decent and secure income in retirement.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced measures in the Budget that will improve benefits to pensioners and help tackle pensioner poverty.

  The basic State pension is rising by £5 per week to £72.50 for a single person and £8 per week to £115.90 for a couple helping all 630,000 pensioners in the region.

  The Minimum Income Guarantee, putting a floor under pensioners incomes, is rising to £92 for a single pensioner and £140.55 for couples. This will increase again in April 2003, and will help tackle pensioner poverty in 105,000 pensioner households in Wales. 10,000 more pensioners in Wales will be eligible, and benefits for the 95,000 pensioners currently eligible will be increased.

  An increase in age related income tax allowances for pensioners by £240 over and above inflation from April 2003 will benefit half of all pensioner households in Wales: 165,000 households.
  229W
  Other measures for all pensioners, and particularly help for the poorest, includes the free eye tests, Winter Fuel Payments and the reduction in VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.

  SMEs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about small and medium-sized businesses in Wales. [155509]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a range of issues.

  The Chancellor's Budget announced on 7 March 2001 a package of measures such as help to manage SMEs entry into the VAT system, reduce burdens and improve their cash flow, which will benefit many of the 140,000 SMEs in Wales.

  Additionally, the Small Business Council is currently holding events in town halls across the UK with the aim of listening to business and its concerns.

  European Funding
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chief executive of the Wales European Funding Office to discuss the implementation of Objective 1 programmes. [155510]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I last met with John Clark, the Chief Executive of the Wales European Funding Office, on 29 January 2001. I was pleased to learn that WEFO are making good progress in implementing Objective 1 in Wales and that utilisation of the programme has been achieved faster in Wales than anywhere else in the UK. Importantly, this has been achieved in Wales through a partnership between private, public and voluntary sectors.

  A total of 190 projects have been approved so far under the Objective 1 programme, with Structural Funds support of £146.1 million.

  Schools Funding
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about direct payments to head teachers in Wales, as announced in the Budget. [155512]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis and we discuss a range of issues.

  My hon. Friend and I are very pleased that Wales will receive an additional £100 million over the next three years as a result of the Budget's additional spending on key public services. It will of course be for the Assembly to allocate the funds according to its own priorities.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on proposals to assist redundant manufacturing workers. [155513]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly and discuss a wide range of issues including manufacturing.
  230W
  The Prime Minister confirmed on 14 March that areas that have been affected by large scale redundancies will be helped by a job transition service (JTS). This JTS will focus on matching skills of those made jobless to the jobs offered in the changing economy.

  In addition, areas affected by steel and other significant job losses currently have access to an on-site jobshop to offer help with all aspects of job search, training and benefits advice, staffed by the Employment Service Rapid Response Unit.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice and assistance his Department gives to EU applicant countries within whose boundaries there are linguistic minorities, about his programmes to protect and promote Welsh; and if he will make a statement. [155519]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The UK Government are always ready to consider sympathetically requests for assistance from applicant countries. So far, my Department has not received any requests for advice in respect of the position of minority languages. Should we do so, I would be very happy to share our experience of Welsh language policy.

TREASURY

  Ministerial Visits (Peterborough)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151035]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I visited Peterborough on 22 January 2001. During the course of my visit I met the hon. Member for Peterborough, (Mrs. Brinton). There were no other visits to the area during this period by Treasury Ministers on Government business.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Salaries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the average percentage increase in the salaries of members of the Senior Civil Service is in the current financial year. [156726]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The average individual award from 1 April 2000 was 4.8 per cent. Figures for April 2001 are not yet available.

  People's Panel Support Group
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the People's Panel Support Group last met. [156728]
  231W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The People's Panel Support Group last met on 16 June 2000. A meeting scheduled for 17 October 2000 had to be cancelled when key members of the group were unable to attend.

  A full evaluation of the people's panel is under way. Further meetings of the support group are planned for when its results are available.

  Important reports from the panel over the last 12 months include research into putting consumers at the heart of public services, attitudes to public services in deprived areas, public services and ethnic minorities and extended opening hours.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142232]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for a range of functions which cover England as a whole, or in relation to non-devolved matters, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. It is therefore not possible to say what their specific impact is on a particular constituency. Additionally, any policy changes arising from reports from Cabinet Office units, such as the Social Exclusion Unit and the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, are implemented by the appropriate Government Department rather than by the unit itself.

HEALTH

  BSE (France)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on research conducted by Dr. Christl Donnelly on the incidence of BSE in France. [144334]

  Ms Stuart
  We welcome the research by Dr. Donnelly, of Imperial College, London, which was published in Nature on 14 December. It is important that decisions on food safety are based on sound science.

  Dr. Donnelly's research showed that, if the United Kingdom's ban on the sale for human consumption of beef from animals aged over 30 months at time of slaughter is enforced, and if the French Government's controls on cattle feed have eliminated the feed-borne transmission of BSE to French cattle born after mid-1996, there is virtually no risk from French beef consumed in the UK.

  The research found that even if enforcement was only 75 per cent., the risk from French beef would be comparable to that from UK beef.

  OTM Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the statement by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 558, if he will
  232W
  publish the evidence on which the Minister based her claim that over-30-month beef is not used in processed products sold in Britain. [146430]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend did not claim that, but referred to signs from manufacturers and retailers that they were using beef from cattle that were not over 30-months-old at slaughter. This information had been obtained by the Food Standards Agency and by local authorities in connection with increased enforcement checks on compliance with the generally applicable ban on the sale for human consumption of beef from cattle aged over-30-months at slaughter (the OTM rule). The Meat Hygiene Service and local authorities were required to carry out those checks by the FSA from last November. High levels of compliance were found and some companies changed their procurement arrangements to ensure that appropriate supplier documentation confirmed compliance with the OTM rule.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many broiler chickens slaughtered in the United Kingdom were rejected as unfit for human consumption in 1999. [150184]

  Ms Stuart
  I am informed by the Food Standards Agency that responsibility for the enforcement of meat hygiene legislation in licensed poultry slaughterhouses in Great Britain rests with the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), and in Northern Ireland with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

  Information relating to Great Britain is not available in the form requested as MHS data are based on cause of condemnation rather than whether the carcase was partially or fully condemned. However, it is estimated that in 1999, approximately 6.6 million whole carcases from poultry weighing under 2kg (a category that includes broiler chickens, cast hen and other poultry) were condemned as unfit for hum in consumption post-slaughter. This represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total throughput of poultry weighing under 2kg slaughtered in Great Britain during that period.

  In Northern Ireland, 62.3 million broiler chickens were slaughtered during, 1999, of which 0.6 million were subsequently rejected as unfit for human consumption.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department first contacted the hon. Member for Manchester, Central concerning his letter of 3 August 2000 regarding catering services for Manchester Central Healthcare Trust; and if he will make a statement. [150134]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: A reply to my hon. Friend's letter of the 3 August was sent on 29 March 2001. A letter from the Department's Permanent Secretary/Chief Executive was also enclosed apologising for the unacceptable delay.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to respond to the letters from Mr. D. Wardell of Woodmancote, Gloucester, dated 30 November 2000 and 31 December 2000, on the subject of the use of mobile phones. [151362]
  233W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: A reply was sent direct to Mr. Wardell on the 6 March 2001. As both letters were relating to the same issue, one reply was sent to cover the two letters.

  Cancer Treatment (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Governments have taken to improve accessibility to cancer treatments for patients in Battersea. [151153]

  Yvette Cooper
  The local primary care group is working actively to improve diagnosis of cancer and improve screening rates. Battersea residents will benefit from our plan to reduce cancer waiting times through the creation of clinical networks and through investment in better equipment.

  New Cancer Equipment
  St. George's—one breast screening trailer (£69,000), six pieces of mammography equipment (£250,000).
  St. Thomas—one magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner (£851.000), two linear accelerators (£1.3 million).
  Royal Marsden—one MRI scanner (£815,000), two linear accelerators (£1.3 million).

  Ambulance Staff
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide driver 2 training under blue lights for ambulance operational staff. [155787]

  Ms Stuart
  It is the responsibility of each ambulance trust to ensure that all staff who drive emergency vehicles are competent to do so. These staff must successfully

  Nature of work

  Commissioned by

  Type

  Cost (£)

  1997–98

  National Health Service White Paper research—advice on public attitudes towards the NHS to allow the identification areas of greatest importance for public opinion

  Press and Publicity Division

  Qualitative

  33,840

  1999–2000

  Research to develop National Drugs Helpline (NDH) campaign

  Communications (COMMS)

  Qualitative

  19,390

  Survey of pharmacists and GPs re: 'Get The Right Treatment' campaign

  COMMS

  Quantitative

  16,130

  Further research to develop NDH campaign

  COMMS

  Qualitative

  22,850

  1999–2000/2000–01

  Evaluation of pilot chlamydia screening programme included surveys by NOP on: Public awareness of chlamydia. Experien of professionals participating in the pilot. Experience of screening participant;

  Public Health Group

  Quantitative

  112,000

  2000–01

  Benchmark survey of young people re: NDH campaign

  COMMS

  Quantitative

  30,000

  Further research with health professionals re: 'Get The Right Treatment' campaign

  COMMS

  Quantitative

  50,470

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the retirement age of operational staff in the Ambulance Service. [156168]

  Ms Stuart
  There are no plans at this time to reduce the retirement age of operational ambulance staff.
  234W
  complete a nationally recognised training course and should gain supervised driving experience under blue light conditions, before commencing full front-line duties.

  The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is currently looking at the core competencies required for driving various kinds of emergency vehicles under blue light conditions. Any changes recommended by the DSA will be incorporated into the ambulance driver-training programme.

  Opinion Polling
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative analytical work his Department has commissioned from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997; and what was (i) the cost of the contract and (ii) the specific nature of the work commissioned. [155664]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: The table shows quantitative and qualitative analytical work commissioned direct by my Department and via the Central Office of Information from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997.

  We are committed to consulting and involving the public to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of a better quality public service. Responsive public services are an important part of the modernising government initiative.

  We conduct or commission market or opinion research only when it is justified by the needs of the policy or programme and is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.

  Statutory Instruments
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department each year from 1993 to 1998, inclusive. [156522]

  Ms Stuart
  The number of Statutory Instruments (SIs) laid before Parliament by the Department each parliamentary session from 1992–93 to 1997–98 inclusive is set out in the table.
  235W

  Parliamentary session

  Number of SIs laid before Parliament

  1992–93

  165

  1993–94

  228

  1994–95

  165

  1995–96

  127

  1996–97

  45

  1997–98

  148

  Nursing Care (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people will benefit from the planned free nursing care in nursing homes in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [156496]

  Mr. Hutton
  An estimated 220 people will benefit from the planned free nursing care in nursing homes in Shrewsbury and Atcham1. The Health and Social Care Bill, which has now cleared the House of Lord's Committee stage, will ensure that in future everyone who needs care from a registered nurse will have it paid for by the national health service.
  1 Source—Shropshire County Council Social Services Department—data relate to self-funding residents in nursing homes in the Shrewsbury and Atcham locality

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department has taken to ensure continued free access to food supplements; and if he will make a statement; [156693]

  (2) what his policy is on the proposed EU food supplement directive; and if he will make a statement; [156690]

  (3) what assessment he has made of differing regulatory structures present in the European food supplements market; and what assessment he has made of the level of restriction imposed in EU member states; [156692]

  (4) what action his Department has taken to re-evaluate the current regulatory structure relating to food supplements; and what steps his Department has taken to ensure the proper communication to the consumer of the health benefits of food products; [156695]

  (5) what recent representations he has received relating to the proposed EU food supplement directive and its impact on the free access to food supplements; [156688]

  (6) what steps he has taken to maintain safety as the basis for free access to food supplements, regulated under food law; [156694]

  (7) if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the harmonisation of the food supplement market; and on what basis of definition harmonisation is to be achieved. [156691]

  Ms Stuart
  We accept there is a need for European Union rules on food supplements to tackle trade problems. This is because member states have a range of regulatory systems, with differing requirements. Generally these are more restrictive than the United Kingdom's safety based approach. We are pressing for a safety based approach to regulation of these products at EU level, in the interests of maintaining consumer choice.
  236W
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is representing the Government in negotiations for harmonised EU legislation on food supplements, has consulted interested parties on the effects of the Commission's proposal. Representations have been received from consumer organisations, individuals, nutrition therapists and professional public health groups, food supplement manufacturers and their trade associations, retailers and enforcement bodies. All these groups support our view that the market should be open to products which are safe and properly labelled. A number of consultees have pointed out that the proposed legislation could significantly restrict the range of vitamin and mineral substances which could be used in food supplements, and the availability of high dose supplements. We are pressing for amendments to the draft directive to take into account the wide range of safe products available in the UK.

  Clear, accurate labelling is essential to help consumers make informed choices. The FSA is pressing for a number of improvements to EU food labelling rules. These include mandatory easy to use nutrition labelling and an effective and practical system for the verification and approval of health claims at EU level. The agency is also calling for the arrangements for health claims to allow the use of disease risk reduction claims where they are valid and presented in an appropriate context.

  Medicinal Products
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proposed EU Directive for traditionally used medicinal products; and what representations he has received on the matter. [156689]

  Ms Stuart
  A letter dated 18 December 2000 from the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) to the European Commission (EC) set out the United Kingdom's comments on the preliminary draft of the directive on traditional medicinal products. The MCA has recently received from the EC a second draft of the directive, due to be discussed at the meeting of the European Pharmaceutical Committee on 5 April. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library. Representations on the directive have been received mainly during the regular dialogue the MCA holds with representatives of herbal interest groups. These constructive discussions have covered most aspects of the directive, including the possible criteria for assessing traditional use, the position of non European herbal traditions, and aspects of safety, quality and information to the consumer.

  Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to defer possible sale of land at Oxted and Limpsfield war memorial hospital until the outcome of the present inquiry by the ombudsman is known. [156665]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Surrey and Sussex Healthcare National Health Service trust will not consider the sale until after the outcome of the ombudsman's inquiry is known and the full business case has been considered by the south-east regional office of the NHS Executive.
  237W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure the physical security of Oxted and Limpsfield war memorial hospital. [156663]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The physical security of the Oxted and Limpsfield war memorial hospital is the responsibility of the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare National Health Service trust. The trust is in the process of implementing a number of measures which are aimed at ensuring the external and internal security of the hospital and these should be completed by 6 April 2001.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letters of 7 February and 21 March regarding Oxted and Limpsfield war memorial hospital from the hon. Member for East Surrey. [156664]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter of 7 February was sent on 27 March 2001. The letter dated 21 March 2001 was received by the Department on 27 March 2001. The issues raised are currently being considered with a view to a reply being dispatched within the Department's service first target of reply to all correspondence within 20 days.

  National Alcohol Strategy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the national alcohol strategy. [156875]

  Ms Stuart
  We remain committed to the publication of a cross-government strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, and we are working with key stakeholders across government, the alcohol field and the alcohol industry to ensure that this commitment is delivered.

  The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, said that the Department would be implementing the strategy by 2004. The Department expects to publish a consultation paper in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking with regard to the advertising of alcoholic drinks targeted at those under 18; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements for self-regulation in the alcoholic drinks industry. [156874]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government and the drinks industry are concerned about advertisements for alcohol drinks which are targeted specifically at people under the age of 18. There are voluntary codes of practice drawn up by the drinks industry, the Advertising Standards Association and other media organisations which ban advertising aimed at children and younger people.

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

Gulf War Reservists: Attributable Benefits
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position of 47 members of the Army reserve who served in Operation Granby with regard to attributable benefits for reservists.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the noble Countess is right that there are 47 such applications under the scheme. However, consideration of those cases shows that at least 25 should have been made under the Armed Forces pension scheme. The remaining 22 would come under the reservist scheme, which we expect to be laid before your Lordships' House in the first week of May, or would be considered for ex gratia awards.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that this problem has been going on since 1986 and that the poor Gulf War veterans have been going round and round in circles? Recently, they were told that everything had been sorted out and they must apply for retrospective medical discharge. They were told how to do it, and to whom to apply. They did that, only to find that the person to whom they applied had been posted to another section. The young lady who had taken over his job sent all the papers to HM Land Forces in Glasgow, which said that there was no such thing as a retrospective discharge, and the Gulf War veterans found themselves right back to where they were in 1996. I hope the noble Baroness appreciates the distress that that causes to sick people. Will she please do something about it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Countess was kind enough to tell me of some of these very dispiriting experiences which, sadly, have been visited upon some Gulf War veterans. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister appointed my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie as veterans Minister on 14th March last. I spoke to Dr Moonie this morning and outlined the kind of scenario which the noble Countess has described to noble Lords. My honourable friend indicated that he would be very happy to see the noble Countess and try to get to the bottom of the individual cases which have gone wrong and do everything possible to stop this very unhappy experience in the future.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness ensure that in future those who serve in
808
reserve roles for the Armed Forces are not placed at any avoidable disadvantage as a result of being called up? Does the Minister agree that, on the whole, the reservists who took part in Operation Granby did a very good job?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that they did a very good job. That is the whole point of laying the new scheme, which will be considered by the Defence Council by the end of April, before your Lordships' House. We hope that payments will start as soon as possible thereafter. There are two ways in which moneys can be accessed, quite apart from the normal Armed Forces pension scheme, which is for those who are part of a reserve force—the Territorial Army or equivalent. But the position of individual reservists must also be considered. Their position will be considered under the ex gratia payments to which I referred in response to the noble Countess.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords. my noble friend knows from our debates on Gulf War illnesses of my close interest in the recent appointment of a Minister for veterans affairs, and I am grateful for her parliamentary reply to me about this on 2nd April. How quickly does my noble friend expect that appointment to impact on the welfare aspects of such worrying and appalling cases as those set in relief clearly and movingly by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, this afternoon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are aware of the very active interest of my noble friend in this matter. I expect the impact to be very quick. The noble Countess was kind enough to talk to me about these difficulties yesterday. This morning I was able to see my honourable friend, who has agreed. I believe that shows that we are trying to move quickly in order to meet these difficulties, which we recognise cause real distress. We shall consult representatives of the ex-service community about how the new appointment should be taken forward. Although the appointment has been made, they may have views about terms of reference and other matters. We shall seek their views on the arrangements for the veterans' task force forum, which will include representatives of veteran groups, including the Gulf War veterans.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that under the ex gratia payments scheme recipients will be taxed? Surely, that is incorrect.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that any ex gratia payments that might be made to individual reservists, as distinct from those who are part of a reservist group, would be taxed under tax law. I urge those of your Lordships with an interest in this area to approach my honourable friend the Minister for veterans affairs who may be able to make representations to the Inland Revenue. As I am sure noble Lords recognise, this is not a matter that is in the

809
gift of the Ministry of Defence; it is concerned with the legal position on taxation. I urge noble Lords who have views on this matter to take them forward by that means.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, we welcome the appointment of Dr Moonie to this position: it is something for which we have pressed for many years. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that the response to the particular matter to which the noble Countess has referred this afternoon will be recorded in the Library of the House?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it cannot have been that many years because the noble Lord's party left office only some four years ago.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I refer to the appointment to this position.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very grateful for the generous way in which the noble Lord has greeted the appointment, which we all believe is a very necessary one. A number of detailed points will be discussed. The noble Countess referred to 47 cases, and I am sure that all of them will be slightly different. There will be a variety of different illnesses from which people suffer—everything from nervous anxiety to bronchitic complaints. If there are detailed matters pertaining to individuals it is not appropriate to put them into the public domain. But it is right that eventually some of the broader points—for example, those relating to taxation—should be put into the public domain in the way the noble Lord suggests.

Housing Benefit
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are delays in the payment of housing benefit; and, if so, what action they are taking to reduce such delays.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): Are there delays? Yes, my Lords. There are 409 individual councils administering housing benefit. Some do their job well; others, frankly, fail to provide the service that the public rightly expect. Raising standards of administration is the biggest challenge that faces housing benefit today. That is why we are working with local authorities within a partnership framework.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not believe that the blame can be laid solely at the door of local authorities. Is the noble Baroness aware that last year the Department of Social Security sent out over 70 circulars and that 14 have already been issued this year to amend council tax
810
benefit and housing benefit? Councils simply cannot cope with constant administrative changes? Is the Minister also aware that the London Borough of Hackney has over 34,000 outstanding cases and that even the more efficient London boroughs have over 10,000 such cases? Does the noble Baroness agree that that is very unfair to those people who want to rent property but are denied access to it because they cannot get the money from the housing benefit system?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness's final comment. It is deeply unfair on landlords and on tenants, who need housing benefit in order to have affordable and decent accommodation. But behind that exists a whole series of problems. I accept that there is what local authorities would regard as initiative overload in terms of circulars, but there are deeper problems.
First, housing benefit has not traditionally been a local authority priority, particularly in London, where there is a high turnover of staff matched by a high turnover of tenants. Those staff try to administer the complexities of four different parallel housing benefit schemes running at the same time because of transitional arrangements. The noble Baroness will understand the difficulties.
Secondly, there are problems of funding. Thirdly, there are problems of contracting out. Hackney's problems, which the noble Baroness identified, are associated with the failure of its external contractor which, as she will know, is the subject of litigation. As a result, Hackney has had to bring the housing benefit service in-house.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the consequences of housing benefit delays for small charities such as the Single Homelessness Project which has a large exposure in Hackney and also in Islington? It has clients similar to the ones I met fairly recently—young men coming out of care, a young woman who had given up her addiction to crack cocaine, and a 40-year old woman who had spent much of her life in a mental institution. Is the noble Baroness aware of the impact of these delays on the service? Managers cannot concentrate on supporting those people because they are chasing up housing benefit. Hackney—just one borough—faces a £70,000 deficit for the coming year. Is the noble Baroness aware of those facts?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was not aware of that specific housing association but I am aware of the wider problems facing registered social landlords. There are around 2,000 registered social landlords, of whom about 500 have a housing stock of more than about 250 properties. Some do indeed face the problem of a backlog of housing benefit as a result of the inability of local authorities to deliver the service they should. However, to put that in proportion—I do not want to seem to minimise the problem—only 2 per cent of the rent-roll of registered social landlords is in arrears. It is a concern; it is not a crisis. It amounts to about £84 million out of the £2.5 billion they spend,

811
much of that notional arrears because housing benefit is paid four weeks in arrears. Having said that, I am more than happy to follow up the point made by the noble Earl about the particular housing association to see whether there is any way we can help.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned contracting out. Is it not the case that where the service is contracted out, the managers of that contract are the local authorities themselves? What are the Government doing to help local authorities to manage their contracts better?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, around one in 10 housing benefit systems are administered under contracting out arrangements. As far as I can judge, most of them have not performed well and have performed less well on average than the local authorities themselves. Some of that may be due to an inadequacy of contract management. It may also be due to the fact that the private companies underestimated the complexity of the task. The DSS has recognised the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and has been developing a new strategic management plan for local authorities to use when developing contracted out services.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in view of the long list of facts given by my noble friend Lady Gardner in her supplementary question, do the Minister and her department not accept any responsibility at all for these delays?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what I do accept is that central government are asking local authorities to administer the exceedingly complicated system we inherited, consisting of four parallel schemes with high degrees of complexity. When we seek, in response to questions from your Lordships, to increase the checks on fraud and error—housing benefit is one of the biggest areas of fraud—that in turn has repercussions for the speed with which local authorities can deliver the benefit. To some extent one is trading speed against error and fraud. I accept that some of the pressures we are putting on local authorities to improve their performance in this area have temporary repercussions for local authorities in terms of extending the period of time. But, equally, we have increased the base funding of local authorities for housing benefit administration, which had not been raised since 1993–94. We are developing best value performance frameworks; we are developing expert help teams; we are developing IT systems; and, in our Social Security Fraud Bill, which has passed through your Lordships' House, we are developing ways of ensuring that local authorities have speedy access to accurate information in order to identify both fraud and error and effectively provide decent delivery systems for housing benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister has identified a problem of administration. It is a view which is fully shared on these Benches. Will
812
the noble Baroness attempt to reduce delays by improving communication between the Benefits Agency and local authorities, in particular by cutting down the number of occasions on which the claimant has to supply the same information twice; once to each of them? If she is assured that the RATS system has alleviated this problem, will she keep a pinch of salt in hand?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am intrigued by that comment because, after all, the whole purpose of the Social Security Fraud Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House only recently, was precisely to have information sharing between central government and local authorities in order to eradicate delays, error and fraud. I have to say that it did not meet with the same enthusiasm on the Benches represented by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as elsewhere in the House. I accept that we have to work with local authorities—and they with us—in delivering what is a very complicated system.
It is a difficult problem. In a London authority such as Hackney, one is dealing with 150,000 properties. There are probably housing benefit arrears— significant arrears—in respect of 50,000 of them. There is a seepage of staff and a rapid turnover of tenants. The staff are trying to administer a very complex system that could potentially become rife, if one were not careful, with error and fraud. Yes, we will do our best, and I hope that we can count on the full support of the noble Earl.

Birmingham Prison
2.47 p.m.
Earl of Longford Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons criticising Birmingham Prison.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, in accordance with the protocol agreed between Ministers, Her Majesty's chief inspector and the Prison Service, an action plan will be produced within 30 working days of the report's publication. That will address all the report's recommendations. We accept that conditions at Birmingham were extremely grim, and urgent action is necessary. Progress is already being made in a number of key areas.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as always, I respect the much esteemed Minister for his heroic attempt to defend the indefensible. This is the most damaging report ever published by a chief inspector. I hope that the noble Lord will go ahead with the master plan. Can he explain why no master plan was introduced in this case when master plans were introduced for Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth, where progress was made? Does the noble Lord join me in paying tribute to the chief inspector for this long series of scathing reports? Does he agree that we must make

813
sure that the chief inspector is not treated like Thomas à Becket was treated by King Henry, as a turbulent priest?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not around at that time.
A noble Lord: It was a previous government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: A previous government, yes!
Perhaps I may turn to the points raised by the noble Earl. We have the deepest of respect for the work undertaken by Sir David Ramsbotham during his time as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. His reports have not always been scathing. Certainly, when they have been critical, we in government have not been slow to move on them.
The noble Earl rightly referred to the action plan. Matters have improved. An action plan was drawn up following the visit, with progress reports submitted to the Minister at different and appropriate times. It would be fair to observe that the action plan has been largely completed for all the points agreed with the chief inspector. It is important to note that the problems at Birmingham are deeply rooted, perhaps in the culture of the organisation, and that they do not relate simply to procedures that need to be refined. I have been advised that, as regards the 1998 report, which was undertaken in the early part of that year. some 40 of the 54 action point recommendations have now been completed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as regards the action plan, what is the machinery for enforcement to deal with this rather serious problem? Furthermore, who is in charge of it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the action plan will be drawn up and agreed. We shall then want to see a copy of that action report. It will be for the governor to ensure that the action report is implemented. Of course, ultimately it will be the Government who must be held to account for the way in which the Prison Service in general is run and managed.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, has the Minister noted that, of the roughly 1,000 inhabitants of this overcrowded gaol, well over three-quarters are educationally at or below level 1? Bearing in mind our need to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can get jobs on their release, is it not a matter of grave concern that only 60 of the 1,000 are undertaking full educational courses and that an equally derisory number are engaged in proper vocational training?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on many occasions from this Dispatch Box I have stated that I fully accept that a great deal more progress needs to be made in terms of education provision in our prison establishments. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that this can be particularly difficult in local
814
prisons where often prisoners are held for only a short period of time. Today I met the governor of Birmingham Prison and we discussed the progress that is being made. He is addressing the serious problem of overcrowding identified in the report. I am advised that the population figures are now around 820, having fallen from the original level of 1,063.
The governor has also advised me that he is optimistic that the new attendance arrangements which have been agreed with prison officer staff will enable prisoners to spend far more time out of their cells in association, undertaking the important education they require and participating more fully in the training opportunities on offer within the prison.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in view of the Minister's comments as regards the earlier action plan issued following the 1998 inspection, why has the chief inspector now commented that, after a scathing earlier report, none of this need have happened if anyone had acted on the recommendations of the previous report?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we are concerned about the slow progress that has been made following the original report. It is for that reason that we recognise and accept that this is a very serious report on the conditions at Birmingham Prison. I think that the new prison Governor, Mr Shann, who has been in post since last October, is already making considerable progress. He has the backing of his staff in that effort and he is putting in place a programme and machinery to ensure that conditions improve within the prison. The Government are playing their part by increasing funding for healthcare provision. A new health centre is to be constructed. More classroom space is being provided for educational purposes and we are working very closely with Mr Shann and his management team, who deserve the support of all Members of the House in their efforts to turn conditions at the prison around.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in saying that he has the greatest respect for Sir David Ramsbotham, he endorses a view that is held universally? Is he further aware that, while not being treated like Thomas a Becket in the fullest sense, Sir David is to lose his job at the end of July and be replaced? The original terms of reference for Sir David's job allowed him to continue in post until November 2003. Will the Government reconsider their decision to end his employment at the end of July and keep him in post until November 2003?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am well aware of the fond respect in which Sir David Ramsbotham is held. I have said on many occasions from this Dispatch Box that Sir David is greatly respected for the robust and thorough nature of his reports and for the important work carried out by the inspectorate. It is a great credit to our system, showing that it behaves with honesty, openness and integrity.
As regards my noble friend's other point, Sir David completed a five-year term of office. That term was then extended. Noble Lords have had many

815
opportunities to debate the position of Sir David Ramsbotham and have not been slow in coming forward to enter that debate. We are in the process of appointing a new Chief Inspector of Prisons. That process will be completed in due course and we expect the new appointment to be made in July of this year.

Kyoto Protocol: US Obligations
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to collaborate within the European Union and the wider international community to press the United States to maintain its international obligations and ratify the Kyoto climate convention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are deeply disturbed by the latest statements from the American Administration on climate change. We remain committed to the Kyoto Protocol. We believe that it is the only way forward. In co-operation with our EU partners and other countries, we shall continue to take advantage of all appropriate opportunities to persuade and encourage the United States to engage constructively in the next round of talks due to take place in July.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I hope that the EU and other international bodies will succeed. However, in the meantime, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that the UK, in its urban, rural and coastal planning, along with our industry, will adapt to the changing global climate? The UK needs to be competitive. We now see hydrogen fuel stations in California and Germany. When shall we see them in the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom probably has the most developed climate change programme of any country. The programme which we issued in November spells out action on a number of fronts. As regards fuels for vehicles, it is of course true that transport is now the fastest growing cause of carbon emissions, despite improvements in conventional technology. For that reason, we need to develop alternative technologies. Immediate incentives were built into the Budget which are already available, along with a commitment to the Green Fuels Challenge which will enable the development of pilot studies and R&D on fuel cell technology, based mainly on hydrogen and other promising renewable fuels such as ethanol. We are committed to developing such alternative fuels and to their speedy introduction into the vehicle fleet.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that President Bush has brought a little common sense into an area where there has been a great deal of posturing and—dare I say it—a great deal of hot air? Bearing in mind that in 1997 the United States Senate voted 95 to nil against a deal which did not include China and India, am I not right in saying that there never has been the slightest chance of the Congress agreeing to the Kyoto deal? That applies whatever administration might have been in office now. Is it not rather absurd to think in terms of a deal which ignores China and India, where these emissions are increasing at an enormous rate?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the first part of those remarks. I think that the statement from President Bush was deeply damaging to the process. It is necessary for us in Europe to try to persuade the Americans back into an area in which many thinkers, business and industrial leaders in America already recognise that their country has to make its contribution. America is responsible for one-quarter of the total carbon emissions in the world. The Kyoto processes themselves would have helped India, China and other developing countries. Without them, and without a commitment from America, we shall be in a difficult situation. However, we believe that we can persuade the Americans back. To that end, we wish to engage in constructive negotiations in July.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the United States Administration has indicated that it will be coming forward with alternative proposals for dealing with climate change? Does he know what those proposals might be? Furthermore, in the event, would it not have been better if the Americans, in announcing that they were not prepared to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, had announced their alternative course of action at the same time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that President Bush has said that he is looking for alternatives. However, there is no indication that the Americans have a worked-up alternative. Our view and that of our European partners—and indeed of most countries participating in the Kyoto process—is that Kyoto is the only show in town. An American disaffiliation from that process is therefore a serious problem. We believe that the Americans will be persuaded eventually to come back into something like the Kyoto process.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, was it not particularly inappropriate for President Bush to cite the non-involvement of China and India as justification for US non-involvement? In Rio in 1992, under the previous government, it was generally agreed that, as the OECD countries were producing 75 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the world they had to give a lead and take some pain—as we are doing under the climate change levy—in order that we should be in a strong position to influence China and India to play their parts. That was always part of the conception.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not only was the Rio convention signed under the previous government; it was also signed under President Bush's dad, who perhaps had a clearer perspective on these matters. We are clear—and have been throughout this process—that the OECD countries, including the United States, must take the lead. It is incumbent on the leadership of the developed world to take that lead and to continue to try to find a way of involving in that process not only the United States but the developing countries. As I said, when the United States accounts for a quarter of the emissions, it is vital that the Americans participate constructively

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.1 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should say how surprised I and my colleagues in the Government are to find that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—in whose name the debate was set down—is not in his place to introduce it. It was not until this morning that my noble friend was informed by the noble Viscount that he did not intend to be here.
The House will recall the 50-minute debate held last week when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, tried to impress upon your Lordships both the urgency and importance that he attached to this issue, arguing that government business should be delayed for such a debate. He eventually withdrew from that position and tabled another debate for today.
The House will also be aware of the enormous burden which my noble friend Lady Hayman carries at this time. She has been assiduous in reporting in detail to your Lordships—I understand that she has spoken seven times on the issue of foot and mouth disease in the past four weeks—and it is worth noting that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, did not contribute to the debate on any of those seven occasions. I am afraid that I am forced to conclude that his absence today suggests that it was political symbolism rather than genuine concern which led to his request for the debate.
I know that my noble friend will again respond authoritatively and with care, as she has done on every occasion. She understands fully her duties to Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jopling set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think I speak on behalf of many noble Lords in saying that the House regrets those remarks from the Leader of the House. I, too, have been a Leader of your Lordships' House. I recognise that one of the most important parts of the job is to speak for the whole House and to consider the needs of everyone in it.
818
It is true that my noble friend Lord Cranborne put down a Motion for debate last week, very largely to draw attention to the important role that the Wednesday debates play in the work of Back-Benchers in your Lordships' House. Today is a Conservative debates day an Opposition debates day—a practice that has been recognised as such on the Order Paper for a considerable time. It is entirely a matter for the Opposition to determine who leads a particular debate. I understand that my noble friend Lord Cranborne is unable to be present today and we are very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will introduce the debate.
To make a serious point, I should have thought that the present situation with foot and mouth, which is terrible for country people—I speak as someone who lives in the centre of a town—and which has a terrible knock-on effect on a large number of small businesses, justified a further debate.
We all recognise the valuable work that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has done. I recall first meeting her when she was a young MP; I have greatly respected her work ever since. It is a tough job being a Minister—anyone who has been a Minister knows that—and it is particularly tough in a situation such as we are now experiencing. However, this is an Opposition day and it is the right of the Opposition to determine what will happen this afternoon.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Leader of House tell us whether she observed the normal courtesies—which I am sure she did—of letting my noble friend Lord Cranborne know that she was going to make a personal attack on him in his absence?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must say to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness that we on this side of the House are a little tired of being accused of discourtesy, as my noble friend the Government Chief Whip was when he raised the issue of the Wednesday debate last week. On this occasion, the discourtesy is certainly not ours.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as a former Leader of the House, I think it is regrettable that the moving of a formal procedural Motion such as this should be used as a vehicle to make a personal attack.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am hesitant to intervene because we want to move on to the debate itself. Although it places an extra burden on the Minister, the whole House will welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. It is agreed across all Benches that the Minister has done extremely well over the period of the foot and mouth epidemic.
Without labouring the point, I must say that it also came as a great surprise to these Benches when we discovered that the Motion was no longer in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Last week, he made a particular occasion of having this debate; if he found immediately afterwards that he could not be present today, I should have thought that he would have told not only the Leader of the House but also

819
those on these Benches well in advance of the appearance of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, on the Order Paper.
The deed is done. It is a matter of great regret. I hope, at least, that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will take note of the fact that many of us, on all sides of the House, are disappointed in him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, one should never be surprised by what is said in the House. However, I was a little surprised by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and, indeed, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I can only assume that both of them either lunched extremely well today—or lunched extremely badly—and that the noble Baroness is suffering from indigestion. I cannot possibly take seriously the words of the noble Baroness.
Of course, this is the week when the Leader of the House was hoping to retire from that office. However, because of the decision made by the Prime Minister, she will have to put off her retirement party a little longer. What I take from this is how immensely flattering it is to my noble friend Lord Cranborne that he has aroused so much passion and excitement. He put his name down to introduce a debate on a Wednesday afternoon, and now so many noble Lords are unhappy because he is not able to do so in person.
For the record, my noble friend Lord Henley, the Opposition Chief Whip, told the Government Whips' office after lunch on Monday that my noble friend Lord Cranborne had taken his name off the list and that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, would lead the debate. Not only did he do that, he changed the name on the speakers' list; so no noble Lord who put his or her name down after that time could have been under any illusion as to who was going to lead the Conservative Party in this debate.
The real humbug in all this is that the Labour Party is obsessed with who runs these debates rather than with the subject matter. The Government did not want this debate. It was forced on them once two weeks ago; it has been forced on them again today. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has spoken to the House when the Government have decided to issue Statements, but this is an opportunity for the House to debate the matter at some length during an Opposition day debate.
We know that what lies behind this—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is in his place—is that Labour Back-Benchers have given up debating any subject on their Wednesdays, as demonstrated so obviously only last week.
While we are debating the business of the House, perhaps I may mention a report in today's newspapers that the government business managers in the House of Lords have decided to give the Hunting Bill a day in Committee. But at a meeting of the usual channels only a few hours ago it was obvious that they had not made such a decision. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us whether or not it is the Government's intention to set a day for the Committee
820
stage of the Hunting Bill before the local elections? Or is this yet another example of the Labour Party saying one thing to the press and doing another in the House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must put the record straight on the question of who sets down which Motion and when. I had no intention of going into that degree of mundane detail, but since the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition regards it as important, let me put the record straight. I understand that on Monday afternoon the speakers list in the Whips' Office was changed: "For 'Cranborne' read 'Jopling'". No one in the Whips' Office was personally informed. My noble friend the Chief Whip was certainly not informed, nor was the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman; and I was not informed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I must make clear that I went into the Whips' Office and told those present, "I am changing the name from Cranborne to Jopling because my noble friend Lord Jopling will introduce the debate". The staff therefore knew what was happening. If the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip cannot run his office properly he ought to look to his own laurels. I certainly informed the Whips' Office.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have no intention of responding to that degree of attack on members of the staff. The fact is that the usual channels were not informed, the Chief Whip was not informed and I was not informed. I should have thought that the lowest form of courtesy would have been to inform the Minister responsible, who apparently received a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, only this morning as a result of someone pointing out that the Motion on the Order Paper had been changed at the latest possible moment—yesterday evening. As I say, these are mundane matters of detail, but the detail entirely supports the position that I set out at the beginning of my remarks.
On the noble Lord's point about business management, these matters are, as always, relevant to discussions among the usual channels. I am once again amazed, as I am more or less every day in this House, by the Opposition's reliance for political accuracy on what they read in the newspapers.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, last week I said that I thought that this House was becoming "niggly" and was behaving badly. The Government have some splendid, qualified people on their Front Bench—it is sometimes better than ours. But I am very sorry to say that, now, they are giving an example of spoilt petulance which does the House and everyone else no good.
I have the highest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She has done a brilliant job. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is a joy to anybody in any government. The Chief Whip is an extremely good man. But suddenly, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, thinks

821
he wants to be there and get the praise as well. Suddenly, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is losing her cool, and it is not an attractive sight.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would it perhaps be a good idea if we leave this matter now and get on with the debate?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care Bill
3.13 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 37,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 38 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 49 to 52,

Clause 70,

Clauses 53 to 56,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 57 to 69,

Clauses 71 to 77,

Schedules 5 and 6.—(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3.14 p.m.
Lord Joplingrose to call attention to the further developments in the countryside since the House debated the foot and mouth epidemic on 13th March; and to move for Papers.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne asked me to tell the House how bitterly sorry he is that he is unable to be present today; he has a totally immovable alternative engagement. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and to the Chief Whip that, in the four years when I was Government Chief Whip in another place, I could not possibly have counted the number of times that messages from the Opposition were translated to me through the staff in my office.
I must begin by declaring my interest as a farmer—
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I have received a message from the staff stating, as I understand it, that the noble Lord, Lord Henley,
822
did not mention the change in the speakers' list to any of them. No one has any recollection of that happening.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, all I can say is that when I arrived in the House on Monday evening my name had been inserted on the speakers' list.
I declare my interest as a farmer. I am a former Cumbrian Member of another place and a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. While my heart bleeds for the plight of farm families and other country people, especially in Cumbria. I shall try hard in this debate to speak more in sorrow than in anger—although my feelings over the past few weeks have had a good deal more to do with anger than with sorrow. I shall attempt to confine myself almost entirely to the situation in agriculture with regard to foot and mouth disease, although it would be easy to make another speech on the effects of the crisis on the nonagricultural areas of the countryside.
First, I shall attempt to refute the statement—apparently believed by some—that foot and mouth disease is merely like flu. It is a particularly nasty disease. Animals often cannot walk or eat; the skin peels off their tongues; and the situation is wholly unpleasant. Secondly, I say to the Minister that we all understand that this outbreak is perhaps the worst, the most dangerous and the most widespread in living memory. But in spite of my affection and respect for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am forced to say that I despair at the errors and delays that have marked the Government's response to the disease. I cannot understand how or why the department seems to have been so unprepared.
On a number of occasions during my four years in the department I was told urgently of suspected cases of foot and mouth in various parts of the country. Mercifully, all the reports were false alarms, but I recall each time one took fright at hearing such warnings, asking for an assurance that we were fully prepared and that we had fully taken on board the proposals of the Northumberland committee. On each occasion I was reassured.
So I have been shocked and ashamed to see MAFF's handling of the situation, and to see the department appear so numb at this time. As the situation has developed, days and days have elapsed between notification and confirmation of the disease, between confirmation and slaughter, and between slaughter and disposal. I noted in the second report of the Northumberland committee that in the period between 25th October 1967 and the end of that year, 85 per cent of the carcasses in that dreadful outbreak were disposed of either on the day of slaughter or on the following day.
Following that dreadful outbreak, I recall the pride that the late Fred Peart had in announcing in another place that the Duke of Northumberland, one of the past half-century's most distinguished agriculturalists, was to head the inquiry into the 1967 outbreak. Over the years I have read a number of times the

823
distinguished and authoritative report by the Duke of Northumberland's committee. The message conveyed was of the vital need for urgency.
I give your Lordships one example which I happened to pick out from the recommendations of the second report of the Northumberland committee. Paragraph 72 states:
"If the valuer has not arrived on the premises to value in-contact animals within two hours of being called, slaughter should proceed, and the valuer should then value the dead animals".
That is a theme which goes right through that report. The tragic fact over past weeks has been that for every hour of delay—there have been many hours of delay—the disease spreads, the death toll rises and the date of clean-up recedes into the future.
Another tragic fact is that as the geographic extent of the outbreak, and the extent to which it had taken a grip, became all too clear, it became more and more clear to many of us that it was beyond MAFF's ability alone to bring it under control. It has seemed that Ministers in the department could not bring themselves to recognise that basic fact and to accept it. I believe that wide Cabinet responsibility should have been seen to be in charge very much earlier. The Army should clearly have been brought in weeks earlier. Perhaps then we would have avoided some of the uncertain messages which have come from the Government which have bedevilled the crisis since it first appeared in mid to late February.
First, there was the uncertain message of whether or not the countryside was open. That misunderstanding has been one of the principal causes of the huge damage which has been done to the tourist industry throughout the country. Secondly, there was the uncertain message conveyed by the dithering over whether or not it was right to use licensed slaughtermen employed by hunts. That is a degree of dithering which we could well have done without. Thirdly, there was the uncertain message of whether one should dispose of carcasses by burning them or burying them. However, one only has to look at the Northumberland committee's report to see the very clear message that burying is an infinitely better way of disposing of carcasses than burning. Fourthly, there was the announcement some weeks ago which suggested that there should be a cull of healthy animals. Then there was a change of mind as regards whether or not cattle should be included in the measure and a delay in implementing it. That also caused uncertainty.
Immense confusion has arisen, particularly recently, with regard to the department's publicity relating to the number of animals involved and the number of outbreaks. There seems to have been a wave effect as regards the amount of information which has been put out by the department. Only yesterday confusion arose as to whether or not there should be an inquiry into the outbreak. One Minister said that there would be an inquiry; Downing Street said that there would not. I hope that I may make a suggestion to the Minister. I believe that a committee of inquiry ought to be set up at once while the outbreak is still taking place. The committee of inquiry should examine how the
824
outbreak is being dealt with. Further, I suggest that there is no one more distinguished and experienced to chair such a committee than my noble friend Lord Plumb. He and I were young members of the council of the National Farmers Union. He became chairman of the animal health committee and later a member of the Northumberland inquiry. Later still he became president of the European Parliament. He is well suited to fulfil the task I have mentioned.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall certainly consider that proposal. I should be grateful if he would recognise that the proposal which he put to me on the Floor of the House on 26th February with regard to the banning of pigswill has been taken on board by the Government.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I think that I was one of the first in either House to suggest that there should be a total ban on pigswill because it seemed to me right from the start that it was obvious where the outbreak had originated.
I hope that the Government are collectively thinking hard about what should be done in the future. I refer to the June elections. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of providing extra free postage to candidates in certain areas of the country, if not in the whole country, as it will be difficult for candidates in the county council elections and/or the general election to get around.
Will the noble Baroness also pass on to the Home Office my next point? My noble friend Lord Plumb recounts an occasion at the beginning of the century before the use of telephones when his grandfather's livestock suffered an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Warwickshire that was subsequently transmitted to the livestock of cousins in Cheshire, apparently by means of a letter. I believe that that case has been authenticated. There is not much difference between a letter and a postal ballot paper. If there is a huge number of extra postal ballots in the elections, I hope that the Government will ensure that disinfectants will be used so that those who handle the ballot papers do not pass on the disease.
I also hope that the Government will consider how the livestock areas are to be restocked once all this is over. I think particularly of the upland areas. When all this is over, prices for replacement stock will go sky high because there will be a shortage. That will cause immense difficulties to farmers who seek to restock but have received in compensation only the pre-outbreak value of the animals they have lost.
Perhaps even more important is the serious situation which may occur if mountain flocks in the areas I used to represent in the Lake District and other places are stripped. If those hefted flocks—which contain ewes which have been brought up to look after themselves on the fell or the mountain—are stripped and they are replaced with new ewes, one will always suffer much heavier losses than with the hefted flocks. With the lack of profit and incentive to enter upland farming

825
and the problem of replacing livestock, there is a real danger that those mountainous areas will not be farmed in future. If areas such as the Lake District are not properly farmed, they will become infinitely less attractive to tourists.
We also need to consider urgently whether or not to vaccinate. I still hope that vaccination will be used as a last resort. I plead with the Minister to be careful of taking on board the recommendations in the Soil Association's report. I know that some veterinarians have some serious reservations about that. I hope that the Minister and her department will consult carefully with people such as Professor Brownlee of the Royal Veterinary College and with the world reference centre on foot and mouth disease at Pirbright which I believe have serious reservations about vaccination.
I also want to draw attention to the serious problem of illegal food imports. The National Pig Association has shown me correspondence that demonstrates that the volume of illegal meat imports into this country has not been properly monitored. That must be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Urgency remains the crucial imperative. We are now told that the Prime Minister is in charge of the situation. Frankly, I am not impressed. Perhaps I may give some examples. The National Pig Association tells me that the welfare disposal scheme is floundering seriously. It is very difficult to contact the Intervention Board to register. Many applications for the welfare disposal scheme have been in for weeks, with no results. I am also told that the Cheale Meats abattoir in Essex, for instance, which is to take animals under the disposal scheme, is awaiting their arrival and doing nothing in the mean time. That is highly unsatisfactory.
Yesterday we were told that 900 rotting animals in Durham would have to be dug up because they had been buried in the wrong place. That does not reflect very well on the management of this dreadful situation.
I am told that on Monday and Tuesday of this week, 10 hunt slaughtermen were sent to Cumbria at the request of the Army, but they have spent Tuesday and Wednesday doing nothing because nobody has sent them to do any slaughtering, even though there are hundreds of animals awaiting slaughter. That is ridiculous.
Monday's Yorkshire Post told a story of unbelievable mismanagement. One paragraph, relating to a village not terribly far from where I live, stated:
"Among the problems which have left the village of Danby, Wiske allegedly stinking like a battlefield was the delivery of two lorryloads of fire-resistant wood to make pyres for the dead animals".
We expect better from the department, the Government and the Prime Minister. There is not yet much to show for the great man's management of the crisis. I cannot escape the conclusion that the Government's handling of this crisis makes King Ethelred look like a greyhound straining in the slips. My Lords. I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have nothing to do with farming. My interests lie in business and industry. I decided to speak in this debate partly to show my support for Wednesday afternoon debates, after the comments that were made about them recently, but also because I wanted to express my sympathy for those whose livelihoods have been damaged by this outbreak of foot and mouth and to show my distaste for those who are trying to divide us into urban and rural societies. I should also like to give some balance to the debate by expressing a town-dweller's point of view.
First, I must express my sadness for those farmers whose livelihoods have been affected. They have had a very difficult few years, with BSE, swine fever, flooding and now foot and mouth. Others involved with tourism, sport, transport and support services have also had their livelihoods destroyed. I commiserate with them, too.
My message for them is: don't give up the struggle. Disaster frequently precedes renewal. We had a good example of that only three weeks ago, when we learnt that Grimsby, which had been blighted by the crisis in the fishing industry, reported full employment and many new businesses in the food processing industry. Perhaps the livestock industry will change for the better after this crisis and a broader rural economic base will emerge.
I am grateful to those who have lent their expertise and specialist knowledge to help fight foot and mouth disease, including the Army, the Environment Agency, the 100-plus final-year veterinary students who have been taken on and the 110 foreign vets who have come here to help. This is day 44 of the crisis. According to Ian Gardiner on "Farming Today" this morning, they seem to be winning through. He said that he thought that he saw signs of an endgame and welcomed the fact that everyone is doing what they can to help.
That brings me to my distaste for those seeking to capitalise and benefit from an artificial split between urban and rural society. Those who have tried to use the situation for their own political ends should be ashamed of themselves. We have all seen the suffering and damage caused by such "them and us" disputes. There is no such divide. The proof is now before us.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what does the noble Lord say about John Prescott, who talked about the contorted faces of people who live in the countryside?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not aware of that remark by John Prescott. A lot of damage is done by "them and us" disputes between rural people and urban people. I do not believe that such a divide exists. The fact that everybody is putting their shoulder to the wheel to fight the disease is a sign that that divide does not exist. Those who are trying to capitalise on the situation should not do so.
Another reason for speaking is to try to give a little perspective and balance to the debate. The fuss and hysteria is way out of proportion with the reality.

827
Certainly the disease has spread faster and more widely than expected, but even so it is mainly concentrated in three areas. Of course it has been a tragedy for those farmers, but across much of rural Britain the only signs of foot and mouth are sensible limits on unnecessary contacts with and movement of animals. Most importantly, foot and mouth is harmless to humans. It is not like BSE, which can kill humans. It may be unpleasant, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said. but it is not even fatal to animals.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. Young animals die. Some 90,000 piglets died in Taiwan last summer from heart disease caused by foot and mouth.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I stand corrected by the greater knowledge of the noble Countess.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should also correct the noble Lord on another point. Nobody has died from BSE. Some people may have died from CJD, but the two are not the same.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I do not want to enter into a long argument, but it has been demonstrated that there is a connection between the two. It would be wrong to ignore that.
Baroness Trumpington: Keep going.
Lord Haskel: Thank you, but my time is nearly up.
I should like to look at the economics for a moment. It is estimated that 1 million animals will be culled. That is a tragedy for the farmers concerned, but we should put the figures in proportion. The meat trade kills half a million animals every week in this country. One million animals represents only 4 per cent of the nation's stock. The gross turnover of the whole agricultural industry is £15 billion, which is about 1.5 per cent of the nation's turnover, and livestock accounts for only about one-third of that. It is important to put those figures in proportion.
Presumably, the justification for all the effort and work that is going in is the need for high quality, safe food from the agricultural community. So why does the farming community have that type of welfare state economy of its own and why is it being preserved? Why do not animal rights activists attack the cull? It is partly due to sentimentality, but I believe that the truth is different. Farming is a business like many others, and animals are treated as items of stock as in any other business.
The Countess of Mar: Rubbish!
Lord Haskel: You may say "rubbish", but I have seen farmers acting in a tougher manner than do many business people whom I come across.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sorry; I should address the House.
828
My six minutes are up but I want to say that I hope I shall hear some "thank-yous" from noble Lords opposite: a thank-you to my right honourable friend Nick Brown and his team, including, of course, my noble friend the Minister, for the unstinting effort that they are putting into fighting foot and mouth disease; a thank-you for persuading the public and fellow politicians that the cost and work of eradicating foot and mouth disease is justified; a thank-you to the taxpayers for their generosity; and a thank-you for the remarkable achievement of ensuring that farming interests are maintained against the interests of very much larger sections of the economy.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, when contributing to a debate, I believe that it is traditional to thank the person who initiated it. However, considering the ire that that might cause, perhaps I may say that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was excellent. His knowledge in this area is considerable. I witnessed it at first hand when serving on Sub-Committee D—the agriculture committee. I also thank the Minister for having answered many times to this House. She has been extremely helpful in the answers that she has given.
I must declare an interest. I live in the remotest part of rural Northumberland. In fact, it is the area of England with the lowest density of population, and it has a rural economy based on sheep and cows. Much mention has been made of diversification and of other areas of the economy being hit. I understand that all too well as I own the only tourist attraction in the Redesdale valley. It has been shut since the beginning of the outbreak and it will remain shut for some time.
I have one question for the Minister. I understand the reasons why the tourist industry has acted responsibly in closing many sites. At the moment the countryside is closed and I shall keep my tourist attraction closed until the crisis is over. However, after the last cases have been dealt with, I believe that the Government will have a role to play in promoting travel within Britain. Tourism will be extremely hard hit throughout the remainder of this season. People will be making their plans and, if we lose them now, very few will travel to Scotland past my tourist attraction. I admit that that is a personal interest, but the significance to the valley is that I employ four people part time. I have had to telephone them to tell them that they will not have jobs well into the summer.
There is very little time to speak in this debate, and hindsight is a valuable but perhaps worthless commodity. However, as I come from Northumberland, where the outbreak began, perhaps I may raise one issue for consideration. I wonder whether the outbreak would have been so severe if the abattoir at Ponteland had not shut in the past year. It is possible that if Ponteland—one of the small abattoirs—had remained open, the outbreak would have been localised in Northumberland. That may not have been the case but, after speaking to local farmers, I now find that 60 per cent of the sheep that we send off in the Border area are slaughtered in Anglesey.

829
That seems an awfully long way to go. Perhaps in the future the Government will have a role in funding the setting up of small, local abattoirs.
I am sure that many noble Lords will discuss the speed with which the Government have acted, and I am sure that lessons will have been learned. However, I have seen at first hand the speed at which certain cases have been dealt with. I refer to a case only five miles from where I live. Within 24 hours the animals had been slaughtered and buried. That was rather unfortunate because the slaughter occurred before the results of the blood tests had come back. The results proved that there was no disease. It was unfortunate for the farmer but it came as a great relief to everyone living close by. Can the Minister say whether the website is correct in stating that in all areas apart from Cumbria the 24-hour deadline is being met?
I have one suggestion for the Minister. I am not sure whether it has been mentioned in the many debates that she has answered. Are the Government giving serious consideration to the use of napalm as an agent in fires? Although napalm has unfortunate connotations from its use in warfare, the very same attributes that make it such a deadly weapon—that is, it sticks to flesh and continues to burn—would be extremely useful. Unlike many of the combustibles being used at present, its potential for pollution is far lower.
The knock-on effects that I have seen in the valley in Northumberland are considerable. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that the disease affects only small areas. That is probably true. Vast areas of the country will not be affected by foot and mouth. However, I should have thought that a recent report showing that the poorest areas are those hardest hit would be taken on board by all Members of the House; I am sure that the Government have done so.
One issue that has been raised—there is not enough time to discuss it here—is that perception must also be changed. Hill farmers are often accused of being scroungers of subsidy and of living off the state. However, it is the CAP—the common agricultural policy—that has regulated and created the form of agriculture that is now employed in this country. Until the CAP is thoroughly revised—perhaps this unfortunate outbreak can be taken as a spur to the reformation of the CAP—then farmers will be trapped in a system in which many do not believe.
3.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as the wife of a farmer who has beef cattle, sheep and goats, as a specialist cheesemaker and as chairman of Honest Food.
While some people may be concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is being a little precipitous in choosing this topic for debate so soon after the previous one, I am grateful for the opportunity that he has given us to look further into what is happening. I also have sympathy with, and express my gratitude to, the noble Baroness the Minister who must respond
830
to the debate. However, being a Minister is a little like being married. One takes on the job for better or for worse.
I could go rambling on about how things used to be and where we must go in the future. However, as I said in the debate on 13th March, it is much more important to get things right now.
Other noble Lords will talk about the animals and the farmers. Therefore, I shall deal with more peripheral matters.
The media are just beginning to be aware of the appalling mess over which MAFF is presiding. The outstanding factor is the total failure by anyone in MAFF to give clear and consistent advice on any subject. The noble Baroness knows that I have been trying to obtain information about the application of the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995, particularly in relation to the production and sale of cheese.
Since 11th March, when our area became infected, I have had many pieces of advice as to what we can and cannot do with our cheese. My environmental health officer is a proactive lady. She has tried by all the means available to her to obtain clear advice. She can see the unreasonableness of imposing what are human health regulations in a situation related to animal health. She has looked at all the websites but has gained no help there. She has simply been told that no one can tell her not to enforce the law.
No one has ever said that humans can get foot and mouth disease from milk or cheese. Why cannot any dairy products made from unpasteurised milk prior to March 2001, when the first of the orders in cheese-making areas came into force, be sold? She needs to know; I need to know; and several hundred other cheesemakers need to know why cheese made as long ago as a year cannot be sold.
I wrote to the Minister last Thursday requesting an urgent reply. I have been promised an answer. I was promised an answer by yesterday afternoon. I telephoned her office to ask how long afternoons last in MAFF. I have still not received an answer. This is a relatively simple matter—
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for giving way. She will agree that afternoons in my office last until at least 10 p.m., when she had her final conversation with my private secretary. I have written to her and I asked for that answer to be e-mailed to her. If she did not get it, I apologise.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have not had an answer. If the noble Baroness has done what she described, I am very grateful.
Someone must cut through all the red tape, decide whether there is any risk to human or animal health and tell us clearly what we must do. We can answer to Europe later.
Not only is there no clear, consistent advice, but no one is examining the consequences of the decisions that are being avoided. What is to happen to the

831
cheeses worth £9,000 that a colleague of mine has on his shelves? He is not allowed to sell them; they will deteriorate with time; he faces prosecution if he dumps them on a tip; he cannot burn the cheeses; and he might be prosecuted if, after all this is over, he tries to put unfit food on the market. Who will tell him what he is to do? He has to keep a wife and family on the profits from the sale of his cheese—he has no other income. Will he get compensation for not being allowed to market a perfectly saleable product because of a law that anyone with any sense knows is crazy?
Since 11th March, we have been throwing our goats milk into the hedge—that is probably illegal, too—because we had no facilities for pasteurising our milk. Two weeks ago, my husband and I walked down the line of our 24 goats discussing which we should cull. We could keep just two or three because we could not afford to feed all of them and could not afford a pasteuriser. My husband inquired about the slaughter scheme for uninfected animals. They could be slaughtered under the scheme only if they were starving. We are not prepared deliberately to starve our animals in order to benefit from the scheme. Fortunately, we have had the opportunity to buy a reconditioned pasteuriser and will not have to make that awful decision.
However, I have been told today—this pursues the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—of a local farmer who this morning fed his last bag of feed to his animals. He has no food in his house for himself, he has no income and he faces prosecution by the RSPCA for cruelty to the animals that he loves. The animal welfare section at Worcester is so tied up with the foot and mouth disease that it cannot consider routine animal welfare matters. What is that man to do? The authorities know about him but they do not seem to have told him about the charities that have been set up to relieve his poverty. No one seems to care.
I want to ask a very important question. Three weeks ago, why did the scientists at Pirbright reject an offer from the United States Department of Agriculture of a field-testing kit based on the amplification of the virus RNA by a real-time polymerase chain reaction? It can detect minute quantities of virus in infected tissue, blood or saliva. Tests can be done at the farm gate and results can be available within a maximum of three hours. It is also highly specific. For example, it would not give a signal for the clinically similar swine vesicular disease. That offer, which was free, was turned down politely on the basis that those at Pirbright were too busy. That was done at a time when results were taking days to come back and when there were expressions of anxiety in both Houses about the way in which farmers were being held in suspense. Was it some sort of "stiff upper lip" arrogance that prompted that stupid decision or was it merely incompetence? Will Her Majesty's Government now go back to the Americas and say, "Please may we take you up on your offer?"? The problem of delays has not gone away, and it will not do so for a long time. Think of the relief that farmers
832
will feel—they are currently waiting for the sword of Damocles to drop—when they know that they will get quick and accurate results.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be relatively brief. Indeed, until last weekend, I had no intention of speaking. I felt that there was little value in the House once again regurgitating the issues involved in the foot and mouth epidemic, particularly as my noble friend Lady Hayman has already made no fewer than six Statements on the issue since the outbreak was first detected on 20th February. Although that was just six weeks ago, I hastily concede that it seems much longer. Media reporting comes to us virtually by the hour. I do not underestimate the scale of the disaster but I question the value of our further debating the matter. What more can be said to assist in the effort to tackle this major problem?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hate to interrupt any noble Lord who is speaking. However, there is a good reason for our reconsidering the issue again today because every day things keep changing. If the Government do not come back to the House, we do not get such an opportunity. We have given a day to debate the problem in full.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I certainly respect the noble Baroness's opinion and I hope that she respects mine.
Last Sunday, I decided to speak in this debate because I was incensed by Michael Portillo saying on television:
"Last week we had a Prime Minister who was paying attention to the general election and dithering about the foot and mouth epidemic. Now we have a Prime Minister who is paying attention to the foot and mouth epidemic and dithering about the general election".
We know what Mandy Rice-Davies would say about that, "He would, wouldn't he?". I believe that Michael Portillo's comments were grossly unfair and shallow. He was clearly exploiting two very serious matters purely to score political points. The scale of the outbreak has been much greater than anyone anticipated but the action taken has been considerable as the circumstances have developed.
During the last six weeks, twice as many animals have been slaughtered as were slaughtered during the eight months of the 1967–68 epidemic. On average, an animal has been slaughtered every 5.8 seconds and the number killed is in the region of 1 million. It is now known that in the three weeks before the first outbreak was detected 1.35 million sheep were moved around the country, which obviously contributed to the spread of the disease. Perhaps one encouraging feature is that the number of cases has only just reached 1,000. It is reported today that, on a weekly count, new cases are for the first time fewer in the current week than the previous week. We should compare that with the 2,500 cases during the 1967–68 epidemic.

833
Yesterday, there was another encouraging report. As a result of the measures being taken, there is a little optimism about the fact that the worst will be over towards the middle or the end of May.
What measures have the Government taken during this relatively short period of six weeks? Slaughtering has taken place on a massive scale. Slaughtermen have been engaged in considerable numbers; vets have also been engaged in considerable numbers; compensation has been agreed for farmers; the Army has been brought in to assist; carcasses are being burnt or buried; the Prime Minister has taken direct charge; the local elections have been re-arranged; the anticipated general election has been postponed; we are preparing for vaccination if necessary; advice has been sought and accepted; and counselling provisions have been put in place for farmers. All those measures have been taken during a short period. The epidemic is being treated with the seriousness and urgency that it deserves, very much as if we were on a war footing.
There have been mistakes and miscalculations. But who expected everything to be perfect in such circumstances? Who expected things to run smoothly when cases were springing up here, there and everywhere and when no one knew where the next case would be? I appreciate that hindsight and wisdom after the event can be wonderful instruments of criticism but I hold no stock with that approach.
In any event, despite the majority view in the Labour Party, the Prime Minister, by postponing the general election and rescheduling the local elections, has put country before party.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean by that that party comes before country?
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I said that the Prime Minister had put the country before the party.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, those on the Conservative Benches have already made numerous interventions. Noble Lords do not have very long in which to speak. I had no intention of intervening but there is almost one intervention a minute. I hope that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches will allow us to proceed in this debate with fewer interruptions.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, I am reminded of the words of the man from Stratford. He wrote:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
I caution the party opposite. If it continues unjustifiably to attack the Government's actions at every opportunity it should not be surprised if the people of this country charge it with being less concerned about the foot and mouth epidemic and more concerned about its political future.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, our admiration for the manner in which the Minister has performed her duties in recent weeks, combined with a proper feeling that we should support appropriate action to tackle the crisis, means that criticism of the Government's record has been muted. However, it cannot be doubted that the disaster that now faces so many is greater than it need have been because of failures by the Government. The MAFF website tells us that sheep were being dispersed over the period 14th to 24th February when,
"we were still unaware of the disease."
The statement that MAFF was unaware of the disease over that period is misleading, although no doubt it will say that it thought it was local and confined to pigs. An alert vet spotted the disease in Essex on Monday, 19th February, and Ministers were informed of the fact the same day. On Wednesday the 21st, they banned exports but took no action to ban sheep movements until 5 p.m. on Friday the 23rd. The website tells us that sheep went to Hatherleigh on the 20th, Hereford on the 21st, Northampton on the 22nd and Ross-on-Wye on the 23rd. There were particularly large movements on the Thursday and Friday.
Then, over several weeks, the Government defied the clear advice of the Northumberland committee that stock should be killed within 24 hours and buried. Even when the vets and farmers knew foot and mouth had been identified, they had to wait four or five days for laboratory confirmation and for valuations before slaughtering of highly infectious animals took place. By the time uncompromising words from the chief scientist and alarming forecasts from a number of different computer models brought Ministers to their senses it was far too late. The outbreak was out of control.
Initially, the decision was taken to burn and not to bury. There was delay and confusion about which option to adopt and about the choice of sites—even burial in the wrong place. Despite wet conditions, there were obvious advantages in burial. My scepticism—I speak as a former chairman of the NRA—when we were told it was impossible because of the high water table Was later proved right when sites were found.
It has been just one example of the lack of co-ordination between government departments, illustrated by the way in which the Army was called in too late and, initially, in inadequate numbers and also, within the last few days, by the Department of Health delaying plans for the burial of cattle while it assessed the risks of BSE contamination. Why on earth was that assessment not completed weeks ago? It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister did not set up a high-level Cabinet committee in the first few days of the crisis; and having been set up, it is odd that even now it does not seem to be working effectively.
Mr Meacher makes a sensible comment on the need for an inquiry, and is promptly contradicted. In Cumbria, MAFF closes down its emergency line for

835
reporting disease at 5.30 so that messages have to be left on an answer machine. In Wales, when the welfare and livestock schemes were introduced, forms were not available for five days and farmers were waiting for a response weeks after forms had been sent in.
I fear that even if the arrangements have belatedly improved, the outbreak is still far from under control. In Monmouthshire the disease has suddenly and alarmingly jumped seven miles in two different directions. Within the Black Mountains we have had an outbreak among hill sheep at Hay Bluff, and on Saturday morning stock were being burned by Gurkhas five miles up the valley from my home. A similar pattern can be seen in Wensleydale in Yorkshire, and there has been an entirely fresh outbreak just to the south of Bristol. Yesterday there were 44 new cases.
Listening to news broadcasts, with their concentration on Cumbria and the West Country, it is easy to make the same mistake as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, of ignoring the fact that a huge area of the country is now affected. The noble Lord should take a look at the MAFF website and its map.
All this is dreadful for farmers, but it is equally dreadful for those who serve the farming communities and the tourist industry. In my part of the world, visitors come to walk in the hills, to ride, to fish, to climb, to explore the limestone caves and to hang-glide. None of these occupations is possible at present. For a large proportion of our local businesses—and this goes for a great part of the Welsh border, mid-Wales and the adjacent English counties—the country is, at best, only partly open and local market towns face economic devastation.
The packages announced by Mr Meacher and the Welsh Assembly are welcome, but inadequate. Rate relief for businesses with a rateable value of £12,000 in England would over a period of three months be worth up to £1,290. In Wales this relief would be available up to £50,000, which is worth up to £5,000 in each case. I have to say that the whole Welsh package is significantly more generous than anything yet announced for England. But if turnovers are down by up to 40 to 50 per cent and cash flows are even more seriously hit, that is not enough if widespread bankruptcies are to be avoided.
I must press the Minister to tell us what other measures the Government propose and what are the conclusions of the task forces that have been set up. It has been suggested that there should be "VAT holidays" and the deferment of tax payments, plus interest-free loans. Are such measures being implemented? Urgent responses to such questions are needed, together with a range of measures to avoid the economic devastation of a very large part of rural Britain. This is now as urgent a task as halting the outbreak.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I believe it is beyond doubt that the situation with respect to foot and mouth disease has grown serious
836
and much worse in the last few weeks, but I do not intend to lay blame. Rather, I want to identify lessons that might be learnt from this pandemic that affects our country.
A number of points emerge, but I believe that there are three of note. The first is that foot and mouth disease was probably present in sheep well before it was identified in pigs in Northumberland and hence, through the trading of sheep at livestock markets in the north of England and further down into the south, was able to reach parts of the country in a pandemic form long before there was the opportunity to control the source in Northumberland. That identifies the problem that we have in surveillance and identification of animal movement.
The second point was clearly the shortage of veterinarians to identify and diagnose foot and mouth disease and to attend to the slaughter. As we know, in some places this took several days, but now I understand that the timescale is within 24 hours. That makes an enormous difference to the control of the disease, which I will return to in a moment. I understand that the number of veterinarians now is of the order of 1,500, which is said to be sufficient to deal with the present levels of confirmation and slaughter. The need to identify and slaughter rapidly is exemplified in the epidemiological projections that pertain to the outbreak. If this can be done within 24 hours the number of projected cases falls very considerably, whereas if slaughter is delayed for two, three or more days, the projections are for a holocaust.
The third point is the very great difficulty of farmers in the affected areas obtaining reliable information about slaughter, compensation, insurance and whether, if they offer their animals voluntarily for slaughter to create a so-called fire-break, they will get insurance compensation in addition to the compensation for the animals. This worries dairy farmers in the north-west of England, in Cumbria, a major dairying area of the country. There are many large dairy herds there, and the farms are very efficient. I wonder if the Minister might look into that problem.
Much has been said about vaccination. Many of your Lordships will be aware of the document that has been circulating in this House, and indeed elsewhere, entitled Why we have to vaccinate. The best comment on that comes from a person who has described it as a,
"classical example of an evaluation using inappropriate evidence, written by someone without experience of foot and mouth disease."
That is blunt and puts the matter in its place.
Vaccination cannot replace the slaughter policy. I have spoken about this before. Apart from losing our foot and mouth disease free status for at least two years if not longer, dairy farmers who may have their cattle vaccinated have asked whether the milk from their cattle will be saleable, even though it would be perfectly safe for human consumption after pasteurisation. They ask whether the meat from their cattle will be saleable even though it would be perfectly safe for human consumption. These are some of the

837
issues that point to a bleak future, especially for the marginal farmers in Cumbria, the Lake District, Yorkshire, the Borders and elsewhere.
The stuffing has been knocked out of these farmers. The poor economy, BSE, swine fever in certain parts of the country and now foot and mouth disease have brought them to the point that some would prefer to take the compensation money and not farm again because they do not have the incentive to rebuild their farms. They wonder whether the banks will provide them with loans on a favourable basis and whether they can generate the income to carry on.
We have learnt a lot from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and should learn a lot more. One of the lessons for the future is that our surveillance and vigilance of the diseases that can be brought into this country must continue. Our veterinary service has been denuded in the past 10 years by various governments—it is 50 per cent. of what it used to be. We have only three veterinarians at Pirbright, the international centre for foot and mouth disease, to which all other countries in the world come for evidence and advice on research and surveillance. Last night, Professor King used the term "horizon scanning", by which he meant surveillance of those issues that threaten not only livestock and horticulture but human health. We should learn from this outbreak of foot and mouth disease that we must pay attention to such issues.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I declare a very real and painful interest in this matter. We farm in west Gloucestershire, which is a seriously infected area. We have a substantial dairy herd as well as some sheep, and the disease is coming menacingly close to us. Therefore, the two points that I wish to raise have a direct concern for me.
Before I get to those, however, I must say a few words to the Minister. Last Tuesday I asked for the position on vagrant sheep in the Forest of Dean. Two days later it was announced that all these sheep were to be rounded up and culled. Doubtless the timing was a mere coincidence, but in order to preserve at least an illusion of influence, I express my great gratitude to the Minister for her prompt response and action after I had raised the issue, although I remain puzzled as to why it had not been done a lot earlier.
The first issue that I wish to raise is the vaccination of dairy herds, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. Why should it not be possible for a dairy farmer to vaccinate his dairy cows and to retain them on his farm until the end of their useful life? Clearly, that would have to be on terms that they could not thereafter leave the farm and could not be sold for food, which would not happen to dairy cows in any case. That restriction would be acceptable to many dairy farmers, as their herds are there to produce milk for sale rather than to be traded or sold for consumption.
838
The slaughter policy is said to be to enable us to continue to export. If slaughter continues much longer, there will be nothing left to export. The question of export is irrelevant to dairy herds, or the great majority of them, and if we continue to slaughter them there will be a serious milk shortage. It will take a considerable time to replace these cows. For a long time after the end of this plague, there will be virtually no replacement animals available.
I have a communication from the United States Department of Agriculture, whose people I imagine even the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, does not regard as being ignorant and not knowing what they are talking about. The department makes it plain that with the new vaccine one can detect even after vaccination whether a cow has become infected. The vaccinated cow is then no risk as a carrier to other animals.
I hope that the Minister can give a clear answer as to whether farmers will be allowed, if they so wish—not required—to vaccinate their dairy cows on the basis that I have outlined. If not, why not? These farmers are in a special situation as their needs are to implement vaccinations so that their cows can keep producing milk. That would apply whether or not vaccination is suitable generally.
It seems rather odd that a Government who have expressed their concern about the welfare of the fox seek to deny cows the opportunity of avoiding the very unpleasant illnesses and symptoms which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has described.
The second issue that I wish to raise is wider. I raised it briefly in the debate on a previous Statement. If the purpose of slaughter is to preserve the trading value, particularly the export value, of the remainder of the livestock in the country, presumably there must come a moment when the policy no longer makes sense. First, there will not be enough animals left to export and, secondly, the value of the export trade that might be lost will be less than the cost of the slaughter. I am referring only to the bare financial costs of the slaughter, not the cost in human distress and the sheer enormity of slaughtering vast numbers of healthy animals in pursuit of a doctrinaire policy.
I fully accept that when I asked the Minister last time to define precisely at what stage the dividing line would be crossed and how it would be measured that was a silly question which could not possibly be answered. None the less, I apprehend that the noble Baroness will agree that at some stage in a very gloomy scenario such a line will have been crossed. Who will make that decision and how will it be made if from mid-May onwards, which is probably about the time that a decision will be required, Ministers will have abandoned their offices to go electioneering and Parliament will not be here either to question their decision—or more realistically, perhaps, their indecision.
The debate is about the countryside, but I make no apology for concentrating on the effect on farming. In reality, if we have no farming, we shall have no countryside.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for putting all the issues so clearly in his speech this afternoon. The chief vet in Scotland, Leslie Gardner, said yesterday to the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament that the disease was out of control. That is a statement of fact with which I shall not argue. It is, therefore, somewhat galling to see in the main headline of the Scotsman the statement of the Leader of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Coalition that the foot and mouth epidemic in Scotland was only a little problem. He really does not understand what is going on in Dumfries and Galloway.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, pressed the issue of an inquiry—something on the Phillips line, but briefer and less expensive, relating to imports, in particular.
I asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on 5th March about endemic imports from countries that have foot and mouth. He responded,
"I understand that EU certification rules require freedom from foot and mouth disease in a country or region before meat from susceptible animals can be imported into the EU. Consignments of meat from third countries entering the EU are subject to checks at border inspection posts".—[Official Report, 5/3/01: col. 5.]
I could not accept that and wrote to him the next day to say that that could not be true; we know that the disease is endemic in South Africa, in Argentine, Brazil and Uruguay, yet we import meat from those countries. However, I have not yet received an answer and almost a month has passed. So the noble Baroness must tighten up our import inspections because beef and mutton have been coming into this country from susceptible areas.
The noble Baroness has said a number of times that there is no blueprint. But that is wrong. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said, the Northumberland report highlighted exactly what steps should be taken as soon as foot and mouth is diagnosed. One of its recommendations was that contingency plans must be in constant readiness. Frankly, that was not the case. MAFF was caught out. The movement of livestock could have been restricted earlier and all the animals which were left out for a long time could have been held under suspicion.
Again I ask: why did it take so long to bring in the Army? It has been a huge success. In Dumfries and Galloway the 52nd Lowland Brigade turned up as soon as it was asked and there was a dramatic change in the whole attitude to what was taking place. Controversy arose yesterday after Mr William Hague suggested Army control. But we had had that for a week or so in Dumfries and Galloway. The senior Army officer in the operational bunker was the lead member of the group running the Dumfries and Galloway outpost. It has been highly effective and warmly welcomed by the officials of Dumfries and Galloway council, by the Scottish equivalent of MAFF in the Scottish Office and by the veterinary service.
840
I want quickly to put a few questions to the noble Baroness which I hope she will be able to answer when she responds to the debate. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell raised the issue of rateable values. In Scotland local authorities receive 95 per cent finance on rateable values of buildings of £12,000 or less, yet Wales is to get 100 per cent on buildings of £50,000. Scotland and England want to know why we cannot do as well as Wales.
The welfare cull has been an absolute disgrace. The Intervention Board at Reading has been swamped with telephone calls. Nobody is able to obtain an answer. When are we to see some action? Why is the price paid by the Intervention Board several pence per kilo less than market value elsewhere?
Perhaps the noble Baroness could also say something about taxation on compensation. Compensation has been paid speedily, and we welcome that. But the Inland Revenue seems to be in a muddle as to whether it is paid on a herd book basis, where no tax is paid, or whether it is on a normal trading basis when taxation will be payable. I should like to have that point cleared up—whether it is to be regarded as flying stock or the herd book.
Again, why are the vets in Scotland subject to control by MAFF in London? That is a strange part of devolution. I am glad that the Ayr office of the Veterinary Service upped sticks and has moved at once to Dumfries. And the Scottish National Farmers Union is dead against vaccination. Does that mean there will have to be some form of sterilisation or surveillance zone between England and Scotland should England go down the road of vaccination so that Scotland can retain its freedom from disease for export purposes, which is extremely important to us?
I should like to have said a great deal more but the clock is against me. I hope particularly that the noble Baroness will say something about the future administration that needs to be put in place in terms of the IACs for next month; how we are to deal with grass parks and the many other issues that need positive decisions from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to help farmers in desperate situations plan for the future.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for the opportunity to take part in this debate. The noble Lord said that he could have made a different speech because the countryside has, in many ways, changed so much over the past 50 years. I shall make a very different speech about a specific sector of the rural economy, without in any way denigrating the vital importance of agriculture and farming. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, without farming there would be no countryside.
I want to speak about a sector which is being hit very badly: outdoor pursuits, outdoor centres and the whole area of outdoor education. A special example is the National Mountain Centre at Plas y Brenin at Capel Curig in North Wales. It is estimated that that

841
centre makes a contribution of some £2 million a year to the local economy. At the moment it is almost non-functioning.
A whole series of specific problems arise. The Adventure Activity Licensing Authority licenses outdoor centres and has 938 such centres, of which over 80 per cent are now completely closed. Including local authority centres and others which are members of the body representing the heads of outdoor education centres, and as many again that are not members of any of those organisations, it is estimated that that sector is now losing revenue of around £5 million a week. That is an extremely important contribution to the rural economy.
Independent outdoor instructors, who are often self-employed, are losing £375,000 a week according to estimates from their association. Of the 230 YHA hostels, of which many noble Lords will have fond memories from their youth, 110 are at the moment closed. The association estimates that by the end of April it will have lost revenue of £2 million. By and large, all those are centres which are run by and employ people in the countryside.
The immediate need relates to the risk assessments. Local authorities have been asked by the Government to undertake to open as many footpaths as possible in low-risk areas where that can sensibly be done without seriously causing risk to farm animals. It is important that local authorities develop a sense of urgency and apply extra staff to that task. In many areas they are using their existing footpath staff, often just a handful of people. It is a serious and important matter if people are to be brought back to the countryside and to the country economy.
That is important for Easter, which is almost upon us. It is fairly clear that foot and mouth disease is not going to disappear quickly. But even if, as we all hope, it abates fairly rapidly now—there is no guarantee that it will—it is clearly not going to go away before the summer holidays are upon us, let alone Whitsuntide, or whatever that holiday period is called nowadays.
The summer economy of many of these places is facing ruin. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, spoke of the Lake District. I have been told that the tourism economy in the Lake District is worth 25 times as much as the farming economy. I do not know whether that is a correct figure, but tourism is worth far more than the farming economy.
This matter affects rural people and rural economies. It is urgent that we find out what can be done. Support and rescue packages are required. In many areas I do not believe that local authorities have begun to consider such matters. Support and resourcing will be required from central Government. In many areas where such things can be done with low risk, innovative ideas and the resources to back them are required.
I shall give one example. The British Mountaineering Council owns a cliff in North Wales at Tremadog on the North Wales coast, called Bwlch y Moch. It is not on but adjoins agricultural land. The
842
council has come to an agreement with the farmer of the adjoining land to erect an electric fence to separate the animals from the climbers, and the other way around. That kind of innovative scheme will be needed in many places to allow access again.
For ordinary climbers who cannot visit such places it is too bad, but we are talking about the many thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on instructing in that kind of activity. Plas y Brenin itself has had discussions with the Snowdonia National Park Authority and with the Welsh Assembly about a scheme for allowing access to the slate quarries and some of the limestone cliffs at Llandudno, where access can take place without affecting farm animals. Temporary fences may have to be erected in order to separate one activity from another while allowing both to continue.
In parts, the Pembrokeshire coastal path passes through Army ranges where there are sheep. People need to ask which is more important, the local tourist economy, the local outdoor pursuits economy or the small number of sheep that perhaps could be grazed somewhere else. Temporary fencing could be erected in such areas as well as in areas of open moorland and cliffs. There could also be the temporary removal of sheep to other grazing land. Such measures will be required, but resources will be needed, along with a sense of urgency in order to avoid large numbers of people becoming bankrupt or going on the dole.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, because he has made an extremely important point. Some recreational areas in the country are in great distress and if nothing changes I do not believe that they will have the cashflow to help them to survive this period and into the future. I thank my noble friend Lord Jopling for stepping into the breach at such short notice and for leading this debate in such an excellent manner.
I have three points to raise: first, imports from South Africa; secondly, the nature of foot and mouth disease; and, thirdly, the effectiveness of a particular unit in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
On South Africa, I know from a parliamentary Answer that I have received that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knew of an outbreak of a pan-Asian strain of foot and mouth disease in September 2000. I am still waiting to hear how much meat has been imported since, and why a ban was not implemented on imports from South Africa.
Since the outbreak of the foot and mouth disease and in response to concern about the number of dead animals lying in our fields, Ministers and officials have argued that once an infected animal is killed the infection dies. On the other hand, whenever there is speculation about the cause of the disease and how it came into this country, Ministers and/or their officials, on radio and television, have suggested—of course, without prejudice to any inquiry—that the disease could have come from illegally imported meat or a sandwich casually thrown from an incoming ship, and

843
even a Chinese restaurant has been named as a possible source because the proprietor was thought to have imported Asian meat. Then there was a suggestion about contaminated pig swill.
However, one cannot have it both ways. If the disease dies with the animal, it follows that imported meat or even meat from within this country, could not be the source. If meat could be the source, it follows that the infection lives on after the death of the animal. There is real concern, and not least some controversy, about whether the infection dies with the death of the animal.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness by telling her my understanding of the matter. This is a difficult and technical point. The death of the virus that comes with rigor mortis and decomposition occurs because, at that point, the pH levels change. One is careful not to allow meat that enters the food chain to decompose. Processes like curing or freezing of meat ensure that there is no decomposition and no change in the pH levels; therefore, it is possible for the virus to survive.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a great deal of decomposition in the fields. Along with many members of the public, I am concerned about the risk of infection from the dead animals that are lying around.
I pose the following questions because I believe that public confidence, or the lack of it, demands unequivocal answers. First, given that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knew of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in South Africa last September, were any meat or meat derivatives imported from South Africa between September 2000 and February this year? Secondly, why was a ban on such imports from South Africa, given that we knew about the outbreak, not implemented once the knowledge of the outbreak was received? Thirdly, does foot and mouth die with the animal? We have had a partial answer to that from the noble Baroness. Fourthly, as a corollary to that, if foot and mouth does not die with the animal, what is the residual risk of foot and mouth disease from a dead animal, especially from the 200,000 odd animals lying dead around the countryside awaiting burial or burning? Fifthly, is it true that a unit set up in 1992 by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, the then Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to monitor animal movements and to root out rogue traders has been shut down and that the investigators in that unit have been moved on to other jobs? If so, why? The work of such a unit would have been invaluable at the outset of this crisis.
Finally, many compliments have been paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, with which I concur wholeheartedly. However, on behalf of many noble Lords. I want to put on record how much we appreciate the tireless work of my noble friend Lady Byford. Throughout last summer's vacation she prepared for the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill almost single-handedly. She has spared no effort in her
844
concern for the countryside, and her commitment to speak for countryside issues in this House without professional back-up has been extremely impressive. It is without hesitation that I offer our warmest thanks to my noble friend.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who opened our debate, has great experience and expertise in agriculture in this country. Once again, he has provided the House with an opportunity to debate this crisis, this dreadful foot and mouth outbreak in the United Kingdom. However, I believe that the efforts of the noble Lord to turn what should be a serious debate about containing and reconstructing many areas of the countryside, especially Cumbria, the Solway Firth, Powys and Devon, into a highly political diatribe against the Government is to be regretted at a time of national crisis. It is hard to take such criticism coming from a party that presided over the disaster of BSE.
The Government are determined to eliminate foot and mouth disease. Indeed our thanks go to my noble friend Lady Hayman for the enormous personal effort that she, along with her Ministry officials, is putting into the eradication of this dreadful disease.
While many noble Lords today have rightly addressed the plight of the farming community, I declare an interest in that I chair the West Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium, with responsibility for encouraging the development of tourism in the West Midlands. In my short contribution, I shall pay tribute to the work that is going on day in and day out under the leadership of the West Midlands Regional Development Agency, "Advantage West Midlands" and The Heart of England Tourist Board to minimise as much as possible the damage to a thriving tourist industry.
The tourist industry in my region welcomes the efforts at national and regional level to respond to the plight of the industry. At present, an urgent £50,000 advertising campaign is being launched in the run-up to the Easter break in order to emphasise the fact that the region's great tourist attractions are indeed open for business and pleasure. There are attractions such as Shakespeare's birthplace, the Iron Bridge, Alton Towers, Warwick Castle and many many others.
Furthermore, the regional task force is also tackling issues that will be important for the future; for instance, restructuring assistance, soft loans and the right business rate relief. It is also concerned that information sent to businesses is accurate. In order to ensure the region's future tourism prospects, it is examining the future domestic market and ensuring that the right messages are sent to the overseas market.
The Prime Minister recently visited the region. Staffordshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire have all suffered confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. The more the Government can continue to work with regional task forces in their sterling efforts to overcome the great threat to tourism as well as to

845
farming, the more we as a country and as an economy will recover from this ghastly visitation of foot and mouth disease.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand how pleased I am not to be in her shoes. I hope she also knows how much I appreciate and admire her dedication. I want to echo the words of my noble friend Lady Blatch about my noble friend Lady Byford. She really is a tremendously hard and effective worker.
It is an important fact that in the past two years we have imported 37,000 tonnes of pig meat from 26 countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic. The Government have allowed that to happen, thus flaunting the agreement reached during a Labour government in 1969 by the Duke of Northumberland's committee of inquiry.
That is the result of policies endorsing cheap food and it must not happen again. The cost of the epidemic, which is almost certainly the result of buying tainted meat, is estimated at £9 billion. Heaven knows where it will end.
As my noble friend Lord Jopling said, another point made by the same committee in 1969 was that burial is better than burning. Despite the recent stupid mistake, I agree with that conclusion. In my view, the environment agencies which have advocated burning rather than burial are just plain wrong. It was interesting to note that the day the Army moved into Cumbria, its first job was to dig a great big hole. That speaks for itself.
I cannot help feeling that if I were a soldier involved in this gruesome job I should be saying to myself, "I joined the Army for Queen and country and not for dead sheep". I believe that the Army deserves our warmest praise and thanks.
Another point is that the RSPCA and the animal activists, who are so vocal and active when hunting is concerned, seem to have lost their voices and stopped their activities during this present crisis, despite that fact that hunt abattoirs have been called in to help in the general situation.
I want to make one final point. This is a rural crisis. It is not farming versus the countryside, as the press and indeed others seem anxious to tell us—and I wish they would not. I think of the many B&B establishments I have seen and visited which have supplemented the diminishing incomes of small farmers. Just tell those farmers' wives who work so hard that they are not part of the tourist industry. It is wicked to suggest otherwise.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for giving the House another opportunity to take stock of the present crisis. Together with other noble Lords, I want to express sympathy and support for farmers in their current
846
plight. Their distress is not just economic but emotional and spiritual, for herds and flocks which they may have spent many years building up are being destroyed. At the same time, I do not forget the many others in the tourist industry or in other businesses which are curtailed by the present restrictions on the movement of goods and people.
The churches have been deeply involved in the plight of the farming community. Rural churches, which are so easy to underestimate, have truly come into their own. Rural chaplains, both in their own ministries and through the networks they have set up, have been at the forefront of support for farmers in many ways, including helplines. There has also been significant emergency financial support. The ARC Addington Fund has now raised well over £1.5 million and 376 grants have already been made.
I want to pose a simple practical question, but one which raises wider, deeper ones. Is there no alternative to the present policy? The pictures of the mass slaughter of animals have been extremely distressing for a range of people who in no way would be regarded as cranky or sentimental about animals. The possibility of mass vaccination was posed and then apparently rejected. I have listened to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and I hope that the Minister will address that question. But if vaccination is not an option in the present crisis, surely we need extensive research to find a form of vaccination that will prove effective in every way. We cannot rest content with where we are now.
The simple practical question, "Is there no alternative?", raises questions at a more profound level. This crisis, coming after several other crises in the food industry in recent years, makes us ask again about the place of animals in the created order. Animals, according to the creation story in the Book of Genesis, are there in part for the benefit of human beings. But they are also valuable in themselves, reflecting some aspect of the divine glory. This means that they cannot be seen simply as economic units. Economic factors are among other factors which lie behind the present crisis; for example, methods of intensive farming and the long distances which animals now have to travel for slaughter and distribution. The value of the export market is a key consideration justifying the policy of slaughter. In any Christian understanding of animals, economic considerations, although of course important and in themselves legitimate, cannot be the only ones; nor indeed do we allow this to be the case for we have a whole range of laws concerned with animal welfare.
Perhaps I may highlight the point by quoting a letter I received recently from a sane, sensible, down-to-earth theologian. It pointed out that in sharp contrast to policies in this country, Star News in India recently reported the case of farming women in Andhra Pradesh who nurse animals sick with foot and mouth back to health with neem leaves and other naturally occurring medicines. As a result, someone has suggested in all seriousness that people should send their sick animals to India where they can be nursed

847
back to health. Of course, this is foolishness and nävety, but sometimes it is the foolish and näive perspective which can raise fundamental questions about our own practices.
When cracks appear in a building, we take it as a sign that something is amiss. The current crisis, coming after others, is such a crack. It suggests that something has gone fundamentally wrong in our whole understanding of the relationship between human beings and our fellow creatures on this planet. Perhaps the present policy is the least bad in the crisis in which we now find ourselves, but, looking to the future, we need to find alternatives not just for the sake of the British farming industry but for our relationship with animals and their place in the created order.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Jopling for his authoritative opening of the debate. A fortnight or so ago I explained my involvement in what is happening in east Cumbria which is where I live and which has always been my home. On that occasion I dare say that some noble Lords thought that I was telling travellers' tales. I hope and trust that nobody now believes that I was then describing the former Yugoslavia and not mainland Britain.
Nothing much has changed. The ghastly disaster still takes its course; it is merely more extensive than it was then. It is now generally accepted that as far as concerns Cumbria the Government's response has been bungled. To see that one has only to look at the conclusions of the Duke of Northumberland's report and contrast them with what has happened on the ground. The disastrous consequences affect the entire economy of Cumbria, not only farmers. In Cumbria the outbreak runs like fire through stubble. The words "out of control" come to mind. Parts of the county are effectively no-go areas to livestock. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, whom I thank for the way in which she responded to my concerns and interests in this crisis, whether it is part of present government policy just to let the disease rip in certain parts of the infected areas.
Quite rightly, the movement of stock is prohibited in the public interest immediately the disease becomes apparent. That means that farmers lose most of the control over their businesses. One cannot remove one's possessions as one might if an adjoining house catches fire or the invader is at the gate. All that a farmer can do is wait for the disease or the cull. Stock is conscripted and then, if not killed at home, taken off to the death camp at Great Orton. Farms are effectively requisitioned and businesses sequestered with trading assets destroyed or, in the case of the very important tourist industry, the landscape—the mainstay of their enterprise—is eclipsed by the smoke of pyres or shut down in the public interest. When that happens there is nothing left for the service industries to support.
In Cumbria the farming and tourist industries believe that they are being destroyed without a "please" or "thank you", a "we'll see you all right", or
848
even a clear rationale for exactly what is going on. They are like a patient who has been taken into hospital and undergone a bungled operation. In that case the perpetrators are responsible and must face the consequences. In this case the Government's position is not that of an insurer of last resort but the person who is responsible for the debacle.
Just as in our darkest hour in the Second World War plans for peace were developed, we must now look forward. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said last week at Question Time, we must be clear that the priority for both tourism and farming is to stamp out the disease. Three weeks ago I raised the problems which were potentially faced in the high fells—they were again raised this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Jopling—in particular, in relation to Herdwick and Rough Fell sheep. We still have no clear explanation as to how to avoid the self-evident ecological and environmental disaster that stares all of us in the face. Frankly, to touch wood and cross fingers will not be enough in this case.
As my noble friend Lord Monro said, farming decisions cannot be delayed like the date of the local elections. Those who have been affected by the disease must recast their plans quickly in order to mitigate their losses. As we all know, the agricultural industry is set in a framework that is controlled by government. Please, please, tell us what we can do and, bearing in mind the various suggestions bandied about in this Chamber, down the corridor and elsewhere—ideas which may not appeal to the Government—what we cannot do.
In and around where I live there is a great deal of confusion on the ground about the implications and consequences of infection and the serving of various notices. I believe that it would be very much in the public interest if information could be made widely available—for example, by advertisement in local newspapers—so that the community as a whole knows the rules and people can have confidence that their neighbours are behaving in a responsible way.
Trotting along behind the virus as it swirls through the Cumbrian air is the dark dog of despair; it moves rather like sin and death, as described in Milton's Paradise Lost, and it is the story of another lost Eden. Despair is all around. We need leadership from somebody with fire in his belly who can take up our cause in government. I suggest a junior Minister. If we cannot find somebody down the corridor with a big personality, and no side to it—I dare say we will not find a suitable person—perhaps we may find someone in your Lordships' House. Failing that, one can always bring someone into your Lordships' House from outside. I am sure that such an individual would be an ornament. We need somebody to lead from the front who can show those who are cast down by the events through which they are passing that there is a future.
Last week I gave a special presentation to an unbelieving agriculture committee of the European Parliament. I described what was going on at home. I concluded by saying that we now needed a Marshall Plan for Cumbria which might well include an entirely

849
different form of agriculture and, with it, Marshall aid. As I explained on the previous occasion, the issue is not one of economic diversification but the sudden destruction of trading assets and cash flow. What is needed now is cash—that vulgar commodity—not vague suggestions about possible VAT deferment and so on, and decisiveness and speed.
Last weekend I discussed this matter with a friend who knows Cumbria well and is a leading merchant banker. His bank has offered to help pro Bono. He agreed with me that this crisis is not of the kind that is usually associated with economic upheaval and job losses, such as the tragedies at Llanwern, Luton and so on, which are caused by market failure. The problems that we are considering are much more like those experienced in the new democracies of eastern Europe and their currency crises. To deal with those problems we must take the right steps and not be seduced by wrong exemplars from past experience.
I end with what may be a surprising conclusion. I do not believe that the crisis in Cumbria has been caused by an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I believe that the cause is a bungling and blundering effort to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. If the Government respond to the crisis in Cumbria with the same sloth and incoherence that they responded to the disease, they will merely compound an economic crisis that they have already created.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleased to join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for introducing this debate. I start by acknowledging that. in preparing for what I intended to say, I received considerable assistance from a former Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Grantchester, who many will be aware is a distinguished member of the farming community as a prize-winning dairy farmer in Cheshire. His agricultural experience is much missed on these Benches, but he has been able to give me an indication of some of the issues and problems that face farmers in Cheshire.
There has been a good deal of confusion and speculation in many quarters. What is agreed is that foot and mouth disease is a devastating and highly contagious disease to cattle and pigs and can be carried with fewer ill effects by sheep. For cattle, it should be likened to leprosy in human disease terms rather than a common cold or the 'flu. Infected cattle have to be slaughtered not only to stamp out the disease but on welfare grounds as well. One single case of foot and mouth signifies a national emergency.
Both the previous government and the present one have over the years reduced the State Veterinary Service, largely as a part of the process of integration with the European Union and the reduction in cross-country border controls. In retrospect, it seems that that is one reason why we were not as prepared to deal with the onslaught of the disease as we could have been. The realisation of that coincided with the
850
Minister's Statement of 13th March. This week, the sixth since the outbreak began, everyone hopes that the disease is stabilising, as so far there has been an average of 35 new cases per day against 37 last week, 24 in the previous week and 16 a day in the third week.
The deputy director-general of the NFU, Ian Gardiner, is quoted in The Times today as saying:
"This drop is significant. An epidemic out of control should double every nine days, but we are now seeing a disease whose course has been interrupted".
He rightly goes on to warn against complacency. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that complacency is the last thing we need.
As we have heard from many noble Lords, Cumbria, south Scotland and Devon are bearing the brunt. Around 250 herds have been slaughtered, accounting for 1 per cent of the national dairy herd, representing perhaps 150 million litres of milk annually, though I gather that the Zenith and Nestlé milk fields in Cumbria account for nearly half the total.
The first case in Cheshire was three miles away from Lord Grantchester's farm on 14th March, in sheep traced to Welshpool market. That date was at the very end of normal incubation time. Since then, the disease has crept into four contiguous farms. Those farmers have blamed smoke from neighbouring fires engulfing their premises as the cause of the spread. There is dismay locally that the environmental health people have insisted that under no circumstances may cattle be buried due to the potential BSE risk from cattle over 30 months old. Can farmers be reassured that the burning of carcasses is safe and destroys the virus completely? Could it be that the warm draught of air created by the fires spreads the virus further and more quickly? The burying of stock, including cattle, must surely be the preferred method of disposal.
As the possible dangerous contacts are traced, there is a worrying development, especially in mid-Wales and Staffordshire, of finding sheep with healed blisters, signifying, possibly, that the disease has already passed through them and that the sheep in question are recovering from foot and mouth. If that is so, it would imply that sporadic outbreaks could reoccur for some time to come.
As the disease spreads, local farmers are naturally extremely anxious and wait on every news update. They feel that there has been a lack of proper information getting through to them. They realise that the emergency planning committees are now operating in every county. Those committees will need to explain what farmers may or may not do with their farms during the months following infection. Can my noble friend clarify whether policies have been determined regarding what will happen in this year's growing season, whether consequential loss payments are being examined, and how quickly compensation payments will be made?
The effects of this terrible disease on the wider rural community have also been highlighted by a number of noble Lords. Following the example of a survey of the effects of the problems at Rover in the West Midlands

851
last year, Advantage West Midlands has conducted a short survey of affected rural businesses as a forerunner to a bigger survey to be undertaken by KPMG and Harper Adams Agricultural College. From that it is becoming clear that the areas of impact between agriculture, rural and town businesses are far wider and deeper than had been imagined. For example, the National Trust has cancelled its orders for all pottery items next year from a manufacturer in Stoke, as a consequence of the expected drop in visitor numbers at its premises this year.
Finally, I shall say a few words about Chester Zoo. It is the biggest wildlife attraction in Britain. It estimates its losses to date from closure at some £500,000. It has taken the decision to open this Saturday. Naturally, visitor figures may well be disappointing. Can my noble friend confirm the importance of maintaining the United Kingdom's disease-free status for endangered species, and has any thought been given to vaccinating a category of special cases, such as those that can be found at Chester Zoo and other centres of wildlife?
All this underlines the urgency that is needed to combat and defeat this disease. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to all the hard work and long hours being undertaken by the teams out in the field and by my noble friend Lady Hayman.
5.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been involved with agriculture. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who has worked with enormous determination and effort and has always been courteous in coming to your Lordships' House to explain what is going on. I thank the noble Baroness and her team of people at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When one is a Minister, all of a sudden something comes out from the sky, lands on one's lap and one has to deal with it. It is very unpleasant. Even if one accepts that a good deal of effort has gone in, one has to be robust enough to accept criticism too. In this world it is not good enough to have tried; one has to succeed as well. If there are points of criticism, we have to realise that it is for our future benefit to try to find the best way out.
We can never say that the disease is under control. If it was under control, it would never have started in the first place. The best one can do is to hope that one can say that the disease appears to be waning. When we last debated the matter, the Minister said that there were 191 outbreaks of foot and mouth. There are now around 991, which is terrible. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that one of the great disasters was at the beginning of the outbreak when so much time lapsed between the disease being inspected, the virus being sent for checking, diagnosis of foot and mouth, valuation, slaughter and then burial. That lapse of time was the opportunity for the disease to have spread.
The Government are absolutely right. I congratulate them on setting the target that the task should be completed within 24 hours. But the sad fact
852
is that of the 1 million animals which are to be or have been culled, nearly 400,000 are still waiting to be slaughtered. Nearly 200,000 animals are awaiting disposal. That is terrible. I understand that some 1,700 soldiers are now at work. They were told that they would advise and supervise. I find it hard to believe that 1,700 soldiers can do that. I know that they are digging holes too, but it would be a great help if the noble Baroness could give us some indication of what they are doing.
Obviously, things have gone wrong. My noble friend Lord Jopling gave the example of the two sites for burial being chosen at Tow Law and the animals being buried in the wrong place. They have had to he dug up, although they had partially decomposed. The footpaths were closed and then opened. The countryside was closed and then it was opened. We have had a good many problems of that nature, including the Minister, Mr Meacher, saying that there would be a full, open and wide-ranging inquiry. He was quite right. The same was done over BSE and it was very unpleasant for some people who were involved. However, the day after he said that. No. 10 denied that there was to be such an inquiry. Can the noble Baroness say whether there will be one?
I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch. She was concerned that the disease had been attributed to either a ham sandwich or the residue from a Chinese take-away. Like my noble friend, I cannot understand how, if the food was cooked, the virus could still exist. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining that, apparently, even if the animal is killed and the meat is then cooked, the virus can still be present. It is only the process of rigor mortis that destroys it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is why the rules concerning the boiling of pigswill at 100 degrees Centigrade are so crucial. That, in addition to the process of rigor mortis, will kill the virus.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, which is of great assistance.
I should declare an interest at this point: I own a rare breed. Some people have asked whether rare breeds and special bloodlines ought to be protected, but I do not see how that could be done. Once we start to vaccinate rare breeds or, indeed, any other kind of animal, we shall destroy the present policy. Perhaps the noble Baroness could make the position clear on that point.
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Many other areas of the economy are being deeply affected by this outbreak. The noble Lord went on to cite some impressive and frightening figures. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, also referred to this issue. It is perfectly true: ancillary businesses such as timber merchants, marquee erectors, livery stables, saddlers, agricultural engineers, tractor suppliers, feed merchants and hauliers—all these and many more—are being affected. The effects of this problem are being felt far beyond agriculture and tourism and in many other types of business.

853
An interesting survey was undertaken between 23rd February and 3rd March by the Country Land and Business Association in the West Midlands. It showed that the average loss of turnover was 41 per cent in agriculture; 42 per cent in the equine area, covering riding schools, farriers, saddlers and so forth; 55 per cent in farm-related businesses such as feed merchants, hauliers, contractors and farm equipment suppliers; and 57 per cent in tourism. Those figures represent reductions in turnover. Few businesses can suffer such turnover reductions for long without going bankrupt. It just goes to show that the tentacles of this disease have spread far wider and deeper than the killing of livestock and concerns for agriculture and the immediate countryside.
My noble friend Lord Jopling wondered how farms are to be restocked with livestock once all the animals have been destroyed. I hope that, if any disease is discovered, the affected animals will be shot and disposed of immediately. I hope that the Government will make up their mind over the use of vaccine, because one cannot oscillate too much on this point: either they should support it or they should reject it. Any indecision is bad for all concerned.
I hope, too, that the Government will continue to "draw down" the £180 million from the European Union monetary fund. That money, and much more, is due to us because of changes in the economic standing of the pound. It does not, in fact, have anything to do with the foot and mouth outbreak, but the extra funds will be a great help to the whole country.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is not surprising that, with such an enormous nightmare hanging over us, noble Lords are taking part in another debate on developments in the countryside, which is now being shattered. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for leading today's debate and for his excellent speech.
As I have done before, I shall declare an interest as I farm in what is now an infected area. I am also trying to decide whether it will be possible to open my riding centre. If people are to enjoy the countryside, they must have something to do; they cannot just sit in a pub all day.
With the need to protect our wonderful breeding stock and our rare breeds, which are a part of our heritage, along with our dairy herds, many people are querying the possibility of introducing vaccination. Perhaps I may ask the Minister: has enough research gone into developing such vaccines?
In the Evening Standard yesterday, a headline read:
"Low prices fuel trade in disease".
There is great concern in the countryside, where animals are a part of our lives, that animals and people are being put at risk of new outbreaks of diseases brought in by the global trade in cheap food. Apart from foot and mouth disease, salmonella, CJD and
854
BSE, foreign meat could bring diseases such as the Ebola virus, TB and anthrax to Britain. Only yesterday several children were diagnosed as suffering from TB at a school in Leicester. The Evening Standard went on to state that all kinds of bush meat has been carried by air passengers from West Africa. On Tuesday of this week, I was told that an airline pilot brought in meat from Kenya because he liked it. It seems that the problem is far greater than we might think.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister this: what will be done to make Britain safer? This kind of thing would not happen in New Zealand or Australia. We should put in place far stricter restrictions. For years a great deal of energy and interest has been directed towards trying to stem the import of illegal drugs. Of course that work is vital, but has the issue of drugs shrouded the importance of other concerns? Has Britain become complacent?
Where I live, many small farms adjoin each other, mainly with sheep and cattle. We all have questions which arise as the virus comes nearer. Last Friday I tried to call the veterinary department of MAFF in Leeds. I could get no answer. I telephoned the NFU helpline. I was told that their representatives also could get no answer. When eventually I got through, the person I spoke to did not know the answers to my questions. I called again today, to be told that the department would be getting some new telephone lines. Can the Minister tell me whether the department will also be getting some more people to respond to the calls? It is necessary that MAFF staff should have at their fingertips the correct answers to questions.
I spoke to a representative of the county council at Northallerton today on the question of clipping sheep. I was told that one could not clip or dip sheep in an infected area and that this was laid down in paragraph 25 of the 1983 order, as amended, covering foot and mouth disease. The person I spoke to at the MAFF veterinary department in Leeds did not know this.
I have a feeling that people are trying to do their best, but they are hard-pressed and in need of a great deal of information so that they can pass it on to worried people who become frustrated when they receive conflicting advice. When I spoke to the representative at the NFU, I asked him what he felt was the most important need as a result of this horrifically contagious virus. He told me, "Information, information and information".
The outbreak at Hawes in the heart of the Yorkshire Dales has caused great consternation among local people as regards the burning of animals. Fears were expressed that smoke from the fire would blow around the village, polluting the air for school children and residents. The animals were then taken to another site and buried. But local people feel strongly that, when officials move in, they should listen to those who know the area.
The difficulty involved in moving sheep has been of great concern to many people. Perhaps I may give an example of one of my personal problems. I was holding gimmer shearlings in a field next to a large

855
animal feed mill called l'Anson's at Masham, which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will know well. Their lorries travel all over the country and I was concerned for my sheep. But on Monday I received a telephone call from the mill because its owners are concerned that, if my sheep contract foot and mouth disease, they will be closed down. There are many spin-off problems and we have to try to help each other.
Flamingo Land is a zoo and theme park close to Pickering in North Yorkshire which last year attracted 1.3 million visitors and employs 800 full and part-time staff. It is now in crisis. Its meat stocks are running out and some of the zoo animals may have to be killed if they cannot get food. With the abattoirs closed, the zoo needs help. Why cannot it have the healthy animals which have to be culled as a precaution? I spoke to Gordon Gibb, who runs the zoo, this morning. He feels bewildered by the confusing and conflicting messages. Is the countryside open or closed?
As zoos fall between MAFF, and leisure and tourism, will the Minister set up a special zoo unit at her department so that the zoos do not feel isolated and unloved? They feel that no one cares. Perhaps the noble Baroness could become "Minister for the Zoos". That would help.
Why cannot cloven-footed zoo animals be vaccinated? Will the Minister please answer this question today, if possible? We need to protect the animals and the tourist industry. We need more proactive help on such matters.
On Sunday I watched the "Panorama" programme on farming. It was not helpful to struggling farmers, who are having the most disastrous and heartbreaking times of their lives. Are we to have meat from Argentina and cheap eggs from China? Perhaps when the milk runs out and the fields are empty, people will understand a little more about what they are losing. With the news that agricultural shows are cancelled, concern over foot and mouth has escalated since the last debate on 13th March.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jopling. As a former constituent of his, I recognise his authority and experience. I should like to say how well he is respected in my part of the world, in Cumbria.
Once again, I need to declare an interest as chairman of a group of Cumbria-based family companies concerned with land ownership, forestry, construction, mineral extraction, tourism and National Hunt racing. As I have told the House before, I have a personal stake in these companies. As an additional interest, if it can be described as such, since the last time I spoke this disease has arrived with us at home and, while I speak, livestock on estate land is being slaughtered; an ancient herd of fallow deer is under threat; and our local economy is in free-fall.
On 13th March, all sides of your Lordships' House supported and gave encouragement to the Government in their efforts to bring FMD under
856
control. Without exception, everyone who took part expressed warm appreciation for the contributions of the Minister. I hope that our thanks and appreciation will be conveyed to her once more. I see that she is not in her seat at the moment; during this long debate she deserves a break. Even today, I should he surprised, with the mood rather changed, if credit rather than blame should attach to the noble Baroness when the full story of this disaster comes to be understood.
The truth is that, along with the whole nation, she has been cruelly let down by a deeply flawed department, by ministerial colleagues obsessed with the election, and, I fear to say, by a vacillating Prime Minister who, not for the first time, goes to pieces in times of crisis; every day reveals a pitiful lack of leadership. One is left wondering what purpose there is to high office if it cannot resolve the petty obstacles that have dogged progress and have compounded, by so many magnitudes, the misery of this crisis.
If true, it is to be welcomed that there will be a public inquiry into this epidemic and the handling of it. Self-evidently, there must be one, and it must have terms of reference equal to the task. I could personally offer volumes of evidence of a horrifying character to such an inquiry, and many of my neighbours in Cumbria would have much more to say than me. Today, I shall confine myself to two examples of how dreadful the management of this crisis has been.
In the early stages of the outbreak, it occurred to me that in south Cumbria we could be protected from the infected north by virtue of the hills and fells that divide us—they would become, so to speak, a natural firebreak—but only if those hills and fells were cleared of stock. I tried therefore to get permission to allow sheep which were grazing on moorland that belongs to us, but where several farmers have commoners' rights, to come down off the hill and to lamb on their farms, as they normally would do at this time of year. No public roads were involved. I did not know then—I do not know now—whether the idea was workable, but that is not the point.
When the department was open to take telephone calls, I received seven different and contradictory answers to this question. Among the comments I received was that this was an important issue which was being resolved at a high level. Nothing is resolved and the disease has come over the hills into the valleys of south Lakeland. Another reply was, "Yes, this is allowed, but we will not put it in writing"; and, "No, you will not be eligible for compensation unless you have permission in writing".
Aside from the incompetence, there is a rather sinister lack of humanity here. Small wonder, I thought, as one grazier spoke of his lambs dying on the fell and said that it might be better for him and his family if his stock caught the disease and had to he destroyed.
My second example relates to a farm tenant on our estate who reported abscesses in the mouth of one of his cattle, which then, naturally, came under suspicion of having FMD. He was served with an "A" notice; his children were not allowed on the farm. By the evening

857
of the same day, the vet who had taken swabs from the suspect cattle received instructions from MAFF in London that the farmer was to put the swabs in his fridge—where, more than a week later, they remain.
The farmer next discovered on 31st March that on the MAFF website his farm was shown as a "confirmed" site. The next day it was reported that an error had been made and that it was no longer a confirmed site. His relief at this news has been short lived as yesterday he was told that his flock has to be slaughtered as a precaution when resources permit.
Even if one accepts, which I do not, that it is reasonable to disregard people's feelings in times of crisis, can the noble Baroness not understand that horror stories such as these seriously undermine any confidence that people may have in the Government's ability to deliver their principal objective of defeating this disease?
Can the Minister tell the House how many laboratories are licensed to perform the routine foot and mouth disease test? We were told one. Does she appreciate that the MAFF website has been a very important means of giving information to the farming world and that it has been a lifeline for many? Why has its format changed so much for the worse? Why does it now give so much less information? Does she accept that a sinister interpretation has been placed on these changes? Will she ensure that the former excellent service is resumed?
Does the noble Baroness agree that, in the matter of pre-emptive culls, the delays in effecting slaughter, often amounting to weeks, very much diminish the intended results? May it not even be the case that after, say, 10 days, the benefits are so small as to be almost worthless?
Perhaps I may say a final word about the situation more generally. This is a crisis that will not end with farming; it will affect everyone. Tourism is perhaps as much a casualty as farming. We should treat with some caution the statistics being bandied about. Although farming is small statistically, farmers create and manage every working day of their lives the very products that tourists want to see and enjoy, so a league table of suffering does not help anyone.
As a modest player in various facets of tourism in Cumbria, I have given thought to two upcoming events that we stage and which now stand a 50/50 chance of going ahead. One event is a garden festival over three days; the other, a few days after that, is three days of National Hunt racing at Cartmel. Both are likely to be cancelled. I mention them because we have calculated that these two events—small as they are—generate in whole, including starting-up costs, between £1 million and £2 million. They represent a tiny proportion of the planned activities over the next few months in Cumbria, but I use them to illustrate the knock-on effect that the crisis will have.
My own losses are not of interest to your Lordships. I profess to be an entrepreneur and, therefore, take risks. I mention losses for this reason: in considering rescue operations—whether for agriculture or any
858
other sector—it should be remembered that the recovery of losses currently being made on investments of all kinds in Cumbria will be very slow. This will create difficulties in helping the rescue programmes and should be taken into account.
In conclusion, it would be a tragedy if farming on a family basis were ever to end. It is a time to keep faith with farming and the farming industry.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords. I live in the countryside. I regard the present situation as of the gravest concern. As a comparatively new Member of this House, I had assumed that such grave matters of national importance would be determined on the basis of what is in the national interest. Therefore, I say with regret but with firmness that I find the remarks of some Members on the Opposition Benches, many in the Conservative Party, to be putting party interest before that of the country. Criticism is destructive; the policies that are put forward, few as they are, are often ill thought out; and the language that is regularly used is extravagant. There are notable exceptions. The example that has been set by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, should be followed.
Those in the Conservative Party who wish to criticise the Government—as they are rightly entitled to do—should have a care. Only a few years ago, a disaster of equal if not greater proportions—namely, BSE—took place in secret as to its origins. Today, we are debating the resolution of a crisis in public. Of course there are problems that will result in mistaken solutions; there will be mix-ups between ministries and there will be different priorities. Such is the nature of government problems in trying to resolve a crisis which I described in the previous debate on this matter as numerically, geographically and logistically of enormous proportions.
That said, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for giving me the opportunity to issue what I regard as a justifiable criticism but, more importantly, to move on to the important topics of the debate: solving the problem, helping those in need, and planning for the future to ensure that such a crisis does not happen again.
In attempting to solve the problem, of course one should be careful and prudent. But yesterday, a chief scientific officer said that it is too early to be completely sure that the strategy is taking effect but that the signs are encouraging. Surely we should build on that comment rather than scour the past six weeks for mistakes that we can criticise.
During the past weeks, as I understand it, the Government have met with the support of senior officials of the National Farmers' Union for what they are doing. The Army officers who have been interviewed over the past few days have expressed their support for the part that they believe they can usefully play in the present strategy. Those examples represent national unity. They should not be undermined.

859
The problem has to be solved by government, through ministries and through the people they are using, such as vets, in the field. It is surely the duty not only of Members of this House but of the public to give full support to a government trying to solve a national problem.
I turn to the second question: helping those in need. I agree that, in the aftermath of the crisis, farming areas, certainly in Cumbria and Devon, deserve consideration for declaration as special regeneration areas. I agree that with regard to tourism the steps taken last week by the task force in terms of rate relief were a beginning and that they should be built on; otherwise, we face the risk not only of losing hundreds of millions of pounds this year but of facing the cost of rebuilding the damage done to the tourist industry.
Thirdly, there should be major new investment in farming and food production. The despairing farmers with whom we sympathise and about whom we have heard so much in these debates should have an alternative.
I turn finally to planning for the future. The crisis has surely brought to the fore the fact that this country—not this Government, but this country does not have a coherent food policy. We are the victims of market forces. When a disaster such as this happens, we must surely reconsider the number one priority of most countries; namely, that the country should produce most of its food from its own resources.
The second point in regard to planning for the future is that the population should be educated in the idea that higher quality, lower quantity food is better than lower quality, higher quantity food, even if—here is where the education is required—it is more expensive.
Last but not least, if the present crisis has done anything, it has illustrated that the rural community is a community of farmers, of tourist industry providers and also of visitors who enjoy the benefits of the countryside. Perhaps the time has now come to consider setting up a department of rural affairs to replace MAFF.
I opened my remarks with a stern criticism, from which I do not resile. I close them by reminding myself and your Lordships of that criticism in the hope that it will be productive. This crisis demands national unity and solidarity. Those outside this House will expect us all, in finding a solution to the problem, in helping the needy and in planning for the future, to put the national interest first.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jopling for introducing the debate. It gives all Back-Benchers a chance to take part, unlike at Question Time or in debates on Statements.
Our previous debate on this matter took place on 13th March, when the Minister of Agriculture said that the situation was under control. Only 22 days later, cases are up by 500 per cent; condemned stock is
860
up by 570 per cent; the numbers of stock killed are up by 480 per cent, of which 30 per cent still await disposal; and the number of animals awaiting slaughter is up by over 800 per cent. Some control; such ineptitude!
I ask the Minister: why was the latest high-tech programme on foot and mouth bought from New Zealand not installed earlier? Few are surprised, but many are infuriated, by the burial of stock in the wrong place. As my noble friends Lord Soulsby and Lord Cavendish have asked, why is MAFF still giving contradictory or ambiguous advice on almost every issue, be it the disease risk from caracasses, crops in store or valuations? Why is it still taking up to 10 days for infected stock to be slaughtered? It is a case of "another day, another blunder".
We are grateful to many vets and support workers who are toiling hard. But I believe that they are now being badly led. Like many other noble Lords, I believe that we are being subjected to a staggering tale of complacency, incompetence and inefficiency. Sadly, MAFF has totally lost the trust of the livestock farmers—and not just of the farmers; there are many in the countryside who are angry and alienated as a result of the way the crisis has been handled. Thank goodness the Army was brought in to try to stabilise the situation. But why were troops not brought in earlier, and in greater numbers, as my noble friend Lord Jopling said?
Do the Government have any plans for the further closure of veterinary establishments, which are crucial to livestock farmers? Perhaps I may give an example in Scotland. The Lib-Lab pact that forms the Scottish Executive has, partly through lack of funding, caused the threatened closure of the Disease Surveillance Centre in Thurso. The closure was announced in January. It would mean that 50 per cent of the stock in the Highlands would have no veterinary centre near to it; the nearest one would be miles away to the south in Inverness. Like others, I wrote to the Minister responsible—a Liberal, Mr Ross Finnie—in January. Despite a reminder, he has not had the courtesy to reply. That is not the first time that that has happened when letters have been sent to Liberal Members.
Last week the situation was aggravated when the Scottish Agricultural College said that the closure of the centre was even more likely as a result of the foot and mouth crisis. Quite the reverse policy should apply. Is anything as stupid as that happening south of the border?
I turn to two problem areas. Why is the compensation for the livestock welfare disposal programme paid at 90 and not 100 per cent? That is discriminatory and unfair and is causing immense resentment in the countryside. But more important is the question of exports, on which so much of the farming industry depends. The Minister in her normal courteous way has kindly told me that it will be at least 12 months from the end of this crisis before exports can be resumed.
However, Saturday's Financial Times revealed that officials in MAFF believe that the relevant period will be four years. I believe that that is probably more

861
realistic, given the recent attitude of our so-called "partner", France, with regard to our beef exports. That will result in lower prices than before the disease struck.
Even then farmers, particularly those in less favoured areas, if they made any profit at all, earned their lowest incomes in real terms since the Second World War. Lower prices in the future will drive them off the land completely. The great disappearance of people from the countryside in recent times will accelerate. Sadly, I do not believe that the Government are giving any thought to the future. If Northern Ireland is allowed to export its meat again, will the same preference apply to the Highlands of Scotland, which, thankfully, is still free of the disease?
It is all very well having a public inquiry to look back at what has happened in the past, but it will take years for the countryside to recover. I repeat my call for a Royal Commission to look forward and to be appointed now, as my noble friend Lord Jopling mentioned. It must consider other areas besides farming. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned outdoor pursuits. I am grateful that he spoke as he is the only Liberal Back-Bencher to do so today. If we let the infrastructure and labour force deteriorate further, it will be costly and will take time to restore. I believe that the countryside has generally been well managed by farmers. The future care of the countryside depends on a profitable farming sector. That is what we do not have at the moment and the prospects look increasingly gloomy. The situation must be urgently addressed.
It appears that in many instances the Government are most reluctant to listen to advice. I ask the Minister to heed the words of William Jennings Bryan, which are as true today as they were in 1896,
"Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country".
5.43 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I speak as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance. I farm on the edge of an infected area and I am chairman of the Cottesmore Hunt, whose slaughtermen are now working in Cumbria.
I start with a slight message of hope. On the east side of Leicestershire there was one case at Stonesby exactly six weeks ago today. It was well handled. The sheep had come from Northampton and were introduced into a house flock. One of them was suspect. The valuer was to hand; the sheep were slaughtered and they were buried in quicklime. One could not have a fire because there was a gas pipeline on the property. The whole matter was dealt with in exactly 24 hours. Will the Minister consider lifting the infected area status for the whole of Leicestershire? That would give us some hope that the situation was beginning to get slightly better. Leicestershire is a major grazing area. We have a large number of cattle
862
all waiting to go outdoors and quite a large number waiting to be eaten as soon as possible. Removing the infected area restrictions would help tremendously.
The scheme for dealing with cattle is not working for those animals that have now passed 30 months of age. A good bullock under 30 months fetches between £600 to £700. My figures differ from those of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I am advised by the local auctioneers that when an animal of over 30 months enters the welfare disposal scheme they will get only £300 for it. Will the Minister consider making up the difference where these animals are held back and have to enter the welfare disposal scheme?
Another problem concerns moving animals. At the moment one has to ring up or send a fax to the relevant official. Eventually a permit comes back which is addressed to one's vet. The vet charges £22 to come out and £30 for an inspection. Will the Government pick up that extra bill? The other matter that annoys farmers is that when they are told how far they can move their animals, the distance is measured not in miles but in kilometres. That is extremely annoying.
Having started on an optimistic note, I must conclude with a matter that is causing much unhappiness. In Britain there are 150 licensed slaughtermen who work for hunts. They are well used to going on to farms and handling a traumatic situation in a sympathetic way. A team of eight was ready at the very start of the outbreak in Cumbria but they were never called. A letter was sent on behalf of all the hunts to the Ministry of Agriculture on 21st March. We have not yet received an answer. It was not until the MoD became involved that the hunt slaughtermen were asked to come forward. The Masters' of Foxhounds Association provided money for their accommodation, but we have received no communication whatsoever from the Ministry of Agriculture, although we have now discovered that 36 of them are working in Cumbria, a certain number are working in Gloucestershire and Bristol and some are standing by in Wales. Will the Minister please respond to that point?
5.48 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have the debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for making it possible.
I was in Belfast in early March. On entering the Parliament buildings I bumped into a member of the Ulster Farmers' Union who said with feeling, "I bet you are glad you are not the agriculture Minister now". I should also declare an interest in that I have a home in Cumbria. For that reason, although I do not have the business or farming connections with that county that some other noble Lords have, through my knowledge of, and acquaintance with, the area I feel the pain that people in the county are suffering.
I am a keen fell walker. Of course, the attractions of the Lake District depend a great deal upon the contribution that farmers make to it. Without farmers the Lake District would be a poor place for visitors and tourists. I am fully aware of the tough time that

863
farmers have had not just in terms of low prices over the years but also in terms of BSE and now the terrible blow of foot and mouth disease.
I have listened carefully to the debate—the contributions that have been made and the criticism that has been made, not, I am glad to say, of my noble friend Lady Hayman, but of other Ministers. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If all Ministers had the same foresight as other people have hindsight, perhaps life would be easier for them. I believe that Ministers at MAFF have acted fully on the basis of scientific advice. I suggest that most of us in their position would have behaved in a similar fashion.
It is possible that scientific advice on this particular disease is sometimes faulty; it is not perhaps as well developed as it might be. That could explain why Ministers have, understandably, had difficulties in dealing with the matter. I am not certain as to how much of the spread of the disease is caused by wind, how much by people, how much by vehicles, or, indeed, how effective disinfection will prove to be. For example, if I walk through a disinfectant pad, am I clear or could I still spread the disease? Moreover, how effective would it be to tag individual sheep, as is the case with cattle, rather than simply tagging them by herds? Would that approach assist as regards traceability?
I am well aware of the damage that has been done to tourism, especially from my knowledge of the Lake District. What will happen regarding the plight of hotels, bed-and-breakfast outlets, cafes, restaurants, outdoor shops and the outdoor centres referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves? I suggest that those businesses will need help because they are so heavily dependent on tourism. I can give your Lordships an example that: was reported in the newspapers recently. The manager of the Wastwater hotel in Wasdale said that the value of the business that he had lost in the first few weeks of the outbreak exceeded the value of all the livestock in Wasdale. That indicates just how much tourism is suffering at present.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I cite the case of Northern Ireland in this respect. The policies introduced in the Province are almost identical to those followed in Britain: yet they have worked in Northern Ireland. It is possible that they have had a bit of luck, but the policies have been the same. There was one case only, and the disease has been well contained. So effective have those policies been that I understand the restriction zone may well be lifted within the next few days. The European Union Veterinary Committee is likely to allow the export of animal products in the near future, except in the Newry and Mourne area where that case was identified.
By following the same policies, it seems to me that Northern Ireland has managed to contain the disease. It is just bad luck that the quick movement of sheep around the country has made the situation more difficult in Britain. However, I should like to pay tribute to officials at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development whom I know very well from my time there as a Minister. I pay tribute to their high
864
level of capability, efficiency and, indeed, to the way that they have tackled the problem. The Minister, Brid Rodgers, has also played a leading role in containing the disease.
Further, the disease has been contained in the Republic of Ireland. There has been but one case, which spread, apparently, from the Newry and Mourne area. Again, the Republic has implemented very tough containment measures, not that different from those that have been enforced here, and they seem to have worked. I also pay tribute to Joe Walsh, the Minister responsible for agriculture there, for the work that he has accomplished in that respect.
This is a difficult period for us. Now is not the time to score political points, as, indeed, a few Members of this House have tried to do. We are faced with a most difficult situation. I believe that the Government have acted both effectively and properly in dealing with the matter. We are talking about a tremendously difficult problem and one from which there are many lessons to be learnt for the future.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I also add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Jopling for initiating today's debate. I should also like to express my gratitude and thanks to the Minister for the part that she has played in these matters and for the way that she assiduously keeps the House informed of what is going on. Indeed, I express my sympathy to the noble Baroness for the fact that she has to deal with such a crisis. I sympathised with her when she was appointed, and I have done so ever since.
Whatever the system of livestock management, we need to keep in the back of our minds that all are susceptible to this disease. Now that we are hearing advocacy of vaccination from the Soil Association, animal welfare organisations and other parties, it might be as well to look a little closer at the problems caused by this virulent virus. It is a fact that most countries will not import either live animals or carcasses from countries that do not have OIE disease-free status for foot and mouth disease. I should explain to noble Lords that OIE stands for L'Office International des Epizooties. In order to maintain disease-free status countries should adopt,
"an effective system for surveillance to ensure that all regulatory measures for the prevention and control of FMD have been implemented".
If we consider what has happened in this country, we have to admit that they probably have not been. I shall return to that point. If the tenor of my remarks is somewhat critical, it is not because I particularly wish to be critical: it is because we have to learn the lessons of this outbreak for the future. If we do not, we can be very sure that there will be another outbreak. However, if we do, there is just a prayer somewhere that we may succeed in preventing a further outbreak.
When I spoke on the matter previously I referred to the Northumberland report, which was then available in the Library of the House. I pointed out that there one could read about the possible cause of the

865
outbreak. Sadly, the subsequent announcements have borne out what I said. When one comes to consider whether or not this country has fulfilled the OIE's disease-free status for foot and mouth—which we have always had for as long as that status has existed, which we have maintained proudly, and which the European Economic Community envied enormously, until it joined us about seven or eight years ago—one has to say that we have failed miserably as far as concerns our control over food imports. There have been too many reports over recent weeks of what happens by way of personal imports of food that appear to be completely unrestricted. Moreover, it seems that official imports are accepted here on the basis of exporter certification, which I doubt is an adequate control. I believe that much stricter controls should have been in force at this end.
This virus has been travelling round the world for about 10 years. It is a well-known fact that it is very virulent. The operation of high health and hygiene standards in cattle is no defence against it. In Saudi Arabia, which is pretty isolated and where one would have thought that the climate would be more hostile to viruses than anywhere else in the world, three herds of cows were wiped out three or four years ago, despite everything that that government could throw at it.
You cannot freeze the virus. The vaccine, which is a live vaccine, is stored in liquid nitrogen, which, if my memory is correct, is about minus 180 degrees centigrade; indeed, the vaccine comes out of that rather nicely. Damp, dark and cool conditions promote its survival. It will survive for six months in slurry, and for one month on the ground in winter. The sort of cool, moist weather that we are currently enjoying is great for the survival of the virus. If the Minister and the rest of the House could lay on a heat wave, it would be immensely beneficial because the virus will survive for only three days on the ground in summer.
Holland used to vaccinate. However, when it had a vaccination policy it still had foot and mouth outbreaks. I certainly know of one cow that was vaccinated three times with three separate foot and mouth viruses but which still caught the disease from a fourth strain, simply because the virus mutates. We are faced with a real problem. I should add that Denmark had similar problems. That experience is one of the main reasons why the European Community went for foot-and-mouth-free status; and achieved it. When one compares its reaction to what has happened in this country, one has to ask whether our actions were sufficient.
The disease was first notified in this country at an abattoir on a Monday morning. That should have set off something like a maroon that would launch the lifeboat immediately. At that point, the animal concerned must have been away from the farm that was the source for at least 48, if not 72, hours. That prolonged the gestation period.
When the outbreak was announced in Holland, there was an immediate stop on all movements of cattle, feedstuffs and everything else to and from
866
farms, including milk, which was not collected for three days—it went on to the ground or into the drains. We were rather slower here.
The final point that I ask the Minister to bear in mind is that, sadly, the Dutch outbreak was due to the activities of the animal welfare lobby. It is a regrettable fact that it can be traced back to this country. The requirement that animals be offloaded, fed and watered at regular intervals on a journey creates staging posts that are great sources of cross-infection. The Dutch outbreak arose because calves from Northern Ireland happened to stop at the same rest centre that a shipment of infected English sheep had occupied three hours earlier. The case rests against that practice.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for introducing yet another debate on this most desperate and serious situation, which affects us all, whether we live in the country and have sheep and cattle at risk—or have lost them in horrendous circumstances—or whether we are only visitors to what was, in parts still is, and in the future must all be, our green and pleasant land.
I shall speak only briefly, because so much has already been said and so pertinently. I greatly hesitate to burden the Minister further. I see that she is not in her place, but I hope that she will read my remarks. She has bravely and tirelessly sustained the heat and fray of battle and the horrible smells, sounds and sights that I know that she will share for ever with those who have lost their animals. Throughout it all she has remained charming, approachable and much loved by all of us in the House.
My noble kinsman by marriage, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was not able to speak today because he could not stay until the end of the debate. However, he has left me part of his speech, from which I thought that your Lordships might like to hear this anecdote about a farmer near Crieff, who found two substantial and well clad ladies in the middle of a field of his sheep. He asked whether they had seen the "Come Back Code" issued by the Scottish Office or the notices on his gates, which all said, "Keep out" and "Stay away from livestock". "Oh yes," they said, "but that doesn't apply to us, because we are both vegetarians".
I tend to think of things in a historical sense, which is a sort of three in one—past, present and future. We all know what went wrong. There have been delays in action and hideous mistakes, such as lorries filled with carcasses of infected animals stopping at healthy farms to ask the way, or trying to stop in lay-bys, which are now mostly blocked up, because they did not know the way. It is not always clear how the disease spreads, but it is highly possible that it spreads through the air, perhaps even from burning. Burying carcasses in suitable pits in isolated areas clear of water supplies must be the answer.

867
Other noble Lords have made other points. I shall not go on. There is no use crying over spilt milk, although it is always important to remember how it happened so that one does not spill it again.
For the present—this is very important—there are still cattle that could be saved from the holocaust, especially rare breeds and those historical bloodlines that have been carefully bred over generations. Foot and mouth is easier to detect in cattle than in sheep, which may often harbour the disease, but not have it in evidence. I do not like to say so, because I find it deeply upsetting, but the way ahead must be to clear round infected areas of any possibly infected sheep.
We had two tame lambs once, called Rosa and Bambi. They became rather a nuisance when they grew up and became tame sheep, running and butting one when one was on the telephone, but we were very fond of them. Other people also love their sheep and, like my noble friend Lady Mar, their goats, but one of the first priorities is to create clear breaks, even if it means culling more apparently healthy sheep, in order to save as many cattle as we can.
I pay tribute to our Armed Forces, who have come in with all the help and professionalism that they possess. It is like when the nurses and doctors arrive when you are ill—you then know that you are in safe hands and are going to be all right. That feeling of confidence must he extended to everyone in the country who has been under this terrible blight.
Now we must think ahead, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, did at the end of his speech—although he is not in his place either. There will be milk shortages. My cousin in Dumfriesshire has lost all his Ayrshire herd and his sheep. There will also be lamb and beef shortages. There must be massive incentives to encourage farmers to continue to farm. We must cut down on imports of foreign meat. We must give out substantial subsidies. For years, farmers have scraped, saved, lost money to the banks and always seen more going out than has come in. There must be subsidies and substantial incentives. If not, no one will restock their farms. Man cannot live without hope. No one will continue the struggle. Our green, beautiful and pleasant land will become pools of concrete surrounded by jungle. We must have a tree planting mentality. We must think of the future and plan to keep the farmers on their land with their herds, their flocks and their quietly grazing sheep.
6.7 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Jopling for initiating the debate, laying out so clearly the serious situation that we face a nd pointing out the great many mistakes that have regrettably been made. I am particularly disturbed by the fact that so many recommendations from the report that was produced in 1968 under the chairmanship of the Duke of Northumberland have sadly been ignored in this tragic situation that we are facing today.
I declare an interest as an owner of land in the north of England, where I have a number of tenant farmers who are as worried now as they were when we last
868
debated the issue. I am glad to say that so far they have not had an outbreak of the disease, but I am afraid that it is coming ever closer.
I put my name down to speak today largely because of the irritation that I feel at having read so many articles on the subject in the national newspapers. I am increasingly fed up with the tribal card that has been played by too many urban journalists. They have argued that country people did not support the miners, so why should the miners and others support country people? Apart from finding that distasteful, I seem to recall that miners received quite substantial redundancy payments. More importantly, considerable sums of regional aid have been pumped into many depressed urban areas from the European Union. Lest we forget the fact, that is taxpayers' money. I do not regret that—indeed, I welcome it—but it is important to maintain a sense of proportion when talking about the tragedy that we face today.
Another argument that I find particularly disturbing is the idea that farmers are all crying crocodile tears over their fallen stock and that all they really care about is the profits that are going up in smoke on the funeral pyres. Those same journalists and media people ask why farmers should care when the same animals now being slaughtered because of foot and mouth would have died in the abattoirs anyway. It seems extraordinary, but I fear that it is true, that they appear to fail to understand the basic difference between a flock or herd and the milk, the suckler cows and lambs that that flock or herd produces for the market place, and the maintenance of the flock and herd that produces that money-making objective.
They still do not seem to understand that many farmers have spent, in many cases, generations building up the flocks and herds, which are much loved and cared for by the farmers, the farmers' wives and, indeed, the herdsmen. Therefore, if we are to have a meaningful debate on the way that the countryside is formed in the future, I suggest that we demand a better understanding from those who write such pieces.
I am under no illusion. I realise that the whole question of subsidy and support is a matter from which we cannot walk away. We must discuss it and do so constructively. In my view, no farmer has the right to expect such support without being able to justify it. In that respect, farmers are no different from miners, steelworkers or any other sector of society.
However, we must never forget that, apart from producing food, farmers are different in that they are the guardians of the countryside. That does not come cheaply. Furthermore, farming has been the backbone of rural Britain for a long time and I, for one, hope that it continues.
Tourism is suffering but, as my noble friend Lord Cavendish so rightly said, the interrelationship between tourism and farming is almost symbiotic. We must never forget that. However, I am only too well aware of the current imbalance in the CAP in favour of production and output rather than the

869
environment. For a long time, I have called for changes in that direction. I believe that it is necessary if we are to obtain public support for farming in the future.
It is interesting, and perhaps not unconnected, to note that the Answer to a Written Question that I tabled recently indicated that 40 per cent of the total area of SSSIs in England—equivalent to fractionally under 1 million acres—is dependent on grazing animals to maintain its conservation integrity. Indeed, many of those SSSIs are the same areas that were created ESAs when my noble friend Lord Jopling was Minister of Agriculture.
Therefore, what will be the future of those areas without grazing animals? I shall say one thing: the tourists will not thank us if they are not there. Unless farming and land management are profitable, clearly those areas will not have the people to run them and will not have livestock. It is a sobering thought but it is clearly one that will have to be built into the equation in our deliberations on these important issues.
Clearly, at present the question is: is vaccination a reality or not? I do not know and I am certainly not qualified to speak on the matter. However, common sense tells me that it cannot be right for hundreds of thousands of animals to be slaughtered to extinction simply in order to eliminate a disease which is not a threat to human life and from which most animals recover. I know the debilitating effects of vaccination, but I question, particularly in relation to Cumbria and Devon, whether we can talk about exports at a time when all the flocks in those areas are likely to be wiped out. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear indication of her department's thoughts on the realities of vaccination.
Perhaps I may make one final point. It may be a surprising one, coming from this side of the House, which, on the whole, quite rightly has been very sympathetic towards farmers. There is always the odd bad apple. During this crisis, some of the bad apples have behaved incredibly irresponsibly. I urge the Minister and the Government to take action against those people. We must set an example for the future.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Jopling for introducing this debate. Naturally, everyone affected by this epidemic is crying out to the Government for help. Where else can they turn? Yet, of course, the Government must be cautious and selective in their help.
Perhaps I may emphasise that, if financial help is to be given, it should be given here and now. However little it may be, some now is worth a great deal more than promises and assurances for the future. Ministers have announced measures to help local authorities to extend business rate relief and to defer VAT and income tax demands. I welcome those measures, but will businesses have to pay commercial or any other rates of interest on the deferred payments? Such
870
measures will bring a sense of relief but they do not begin to meet the scale of the crisis for the thousands of rural businesses facing the almost total loss of three, six or even nine months' income.
Tourism chiefs are looking at losses to their industry approaching £250 million a week at present and running up to £500 million a week in high summer. Bankruptcy is looming large all over the place, and many people have no idea what to do. Great effort must be made now to clarify messages as to where tourists can go—where they will be welcomed and where they will not. It should be possible to do so by applying common sense with accurate and properly co-ordinated information and rapid and effective dissemination of that information to potential tourists, both in the UK and abroad. To that end, I welcome the launch this morning of the new website by Chris Smith. I believe that it will be most helpful.
I shall give one example of how that information is not getting through. I understand that a group of Americans who are involved in helping disabled tourists recently cancelled a visit to this House because they feared that we were infected with foot and mouth disease and that they might catch it.
Is the countryside open for business or not? Some of it is and some not. It must be made much clearer which is which. Therefore, it was not helpful of English Nature, in the course of its advertisement in the House Magazine of 26th March, to refer to:
"The effective closure of the countryside".
Consequential losses in revenue from tourists who have not come to Cheltenham races, Badminton Horse Trials and many other cancelled events will affect the whole country and not only the adjacent rural areas. Easter—the normal start to the tourist season—is, I fear, heading for disaster.
The Government must continue to press banks and other sources of lending money to be as generous and sympathetic as possible to loan requests. They should not ask for repayments when it is clearly not possible for those to be forthcoming until businesses recover. Staff in hotels and many other businesses are being laid off. How can any enterprise, without income and without funds, pay for redundancies? How can a guest house claw back income from empty rooms?
I welcome the fact that the Government are providing an extra £10 million to the British Tourist Authority to go out and rebut some of the misconceptions which are deterring potential tourists from abroad. But is that enough? The scale of the problem is massive and warrants a sledgehammer response. After all, tourism in England alone generates more than —12 billion per annum.
Many agricultural shows are being cancelled. That, in turn, will bring hardship to the thousands of small businesses which are dependent on the summer shows for their livelihood. Are the Government aware that even late season shows, such as Burleigh Horse Trials at the end of August, are likely to have to cancel now due to their inability to obtain cancellation insurance coverage to include foot and mouth disease? I state an interest as I have a stand at Burleigh selling

871
watercolours. But many small businesses will have nowhere to turn if they cannot expose their wares to sell.
In today's press release, Chris Smith urges new events to be put on as a way of contributing to the Government's strategy of encouraging visitors back to the countryside. I thoroughly support that. Therefore, would it not make sense for the Government to persuade insurance companies not to abandon what in many cases are long-term customers in their hour of need; or perhaps the Government would consider some kind of guarantee, like the export credits guarantee scheme?
The longer that the crisis continues, the greater the long-term damage is likely to be to Britain's image as a tourist destination. I wonder whether the House is aware that it took five years for the inward tourist industry to the United States to recover from the Gulf War, which did not even happen in that continent.
Can the Minister give us up-to-date news on the spread of the disease in the Lake District National Park? Does she agree that an even more serious threat to the tourist industry looms if the disease gets a hold in Exmoor, the New Forest and—God help us—Dartrnoor?
I am afraid that so far as I can see there are, sadly, no signs that the Government are beginning to hold even the increase in the disease. That is the first priority. Would it not help if the Government stopped saying that the disease was under control when it plainly is not? The Minister is obviously keeping her nerve and I wish her well personally and thank her for her efforts on our behalf.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I, too, stress the importance of the job that MAFF and, notably, my noble friend the Minister are currently doing. Noble Lords have already discussed the fact that the MAFF team has an extraordinarily difficult job to do. There is loose talk about changing departments and of MAFF merging with the DETR, the DTI or the "D-anythingelse". The fact is that agriculture and food go together. We should consider what should be done on any other such occasion in the future. Agriculture may be treated as a branch of tourism in the future, but that proposal requires a bit of thought and we should not use loose language in that regard.
The general trend of the debate has been to give basic support to the Government's policy as it now stands. In saying that, I should check that we are all talking about the same thing. Our view is that we acknowledge that the policy of culling is a quicker way to get to the end of the crisis than the policy of vaccination. Some noble Lords may shake their heads, but it is undoubtedly the case that going down a different route would have different ramifications for our exports and status; the implications could last for months or years.
The key point is that the arrowhead of the Government's policy is that there should be slaughter at infected farms within 24 hours and at neighbouring
872
farms, I believe, within 48 hours. That policy will involve a projected downward curve of cases during the next few months. Other policies would involve projected upward curves, some of which are alarming.
With my trade union background, I want to discuss the problems experienced by farm workers in this crisis and more generally. Employment statistics for the latest available year—I believe that it was a fairly typical year—show that in the year to June 2000, 12.4 per cent of hired workers, which amounts to 20,000 workers, lost their jobs, compared with only 0.6 per cent of farmers. I was interested by the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has tenant farmers. Although there are exceptions, land values in Britain have generally increased substantially—by about 10 per cent a year. That is a cushion for landowners but not for tenant farmers or those who work at the wages board rate of £4,57 an hour. Bankruptcies in the farming industry have been for many years—I stress this—the lowest of any major industrial sector.
If noble Lords are ready, I have another statistic for them. Suicides are high in rural areas and in farming, but proportionately more hired workers commit suicide than do farmers.
When considering the future, we should do so against the background that there are traumas for everyone involved. Land workers are often closer to the animals that they look after than are their employers who own those animals. There are different types of farm, including big farms the size of Norfolk—I exaggerate—and those in the tenant farmer sector.
I say, half tongue in cheek, that there is a perception in the Lake District and in many other parts of Britain that agriculture is a branch of tourism. We may have to take that more seriously in future.
Some union officials told me a statistic that surprised me and which is worth mentioning. One might think that we had only a couple of abattoirs left in the country but in fact 340 abattoirs are still running. We have argued about the disappearance of abattoirs. I chaired some meetings in my region about that six years ago during the BSE crisis. The relationship with supermarkets has to be examined in a cooler way. There has been a curious increase in trade in sheep and cattle, but not because there are no abattoirs left.
We need to consider the question of subsidies. The impact of subsidies is becoming more pronounced—80 per cent of the subsidy goes to 20 per cent of farmers. That is because of the structure of the CAP. It is all very well for people to keep saying, "We do not like the CAP" but half of farm incomes is from the CAP or a result of our tariff protection. The figures—I believe that they are right—show that we get a subsidy for agriculture that is equivalent to £3.5 billion from the CAP and that we get a subsidy of £1.5 billion through the effect of the tariff. That makes £5 billion. If I added the extra externalities of pesticides and so on, the figure would be bigger. Mining and the car industry have been discussed. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, should perhaps bear that comparison in mind.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, in the time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have been in the unhappy position of witnessing the decline and destruction of the shipbuilding, steel, mining and textile industries.
I had the pleasure of serving on a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which drew attention to the decline in the manufacturing sector. We considered what we would do when oil ran out. The great economists—736 of them—and the government said that there was no need to manufacture any more. We used to manufacture and export to pay for the cost of our food. We are now self-sufficient in terms of food and one of the most efficient farming nations upon Earth. Perhaps we need not worry; our future could depend on services and tourists. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, said in an interview, "Do we all really want to end up as Beefeaters in the Tower of London?"
We have witnessed a decline in farming and we are now facing another decline of far greater seriousness than I believe any of us are prepared to recognise or acknowledge. I will set the scene like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. We have 18 million hectares of land in this country; 141,000 farms are upon that land; there are 60 million beasts; and 60 per cent of the land is suitable only for occupancy by beasts. If we look at the balance-sheet, we could value that land at £100 billion and the livestock at £10 billion. We know that the capital invested in farm machinery is about £32 billion. But are we talking about that alone?
In that sector we now have some 550,000 employees, and I think of the phrase, "the loneliness of the long-distance tractor driver". The populations of the rural areas have been decimated because, as in so many things, the United Kingdom has again failed to manage its own decline. I should perhaps declare an interest in that in 1967 the group with which I worked did a lot of work in the agricultural sector for the then government. We also handled promotion and market research for the British Tourist Authority at the time of the foot and mouth crisis.
I thought afterwards that we were going to have a disease-free farming industry. We had very strict controls from MAFF: nobody could move or breathe. Apart from the VAT people and Customs and Excise, MAFF had absolute powers to go anywhere and control everything. They were not universally liked, but they were respected. Now we have a scene where we have moved into the "blame culture" and people are looking to blame each other. Noble Lords opposite are blaming noble Lords on this side for not being constructive. We are perhaps being destructive of ourselves, but it is a serious situation.
It is not only economic, but socio-economic. It is difficult to find the facts and the information. Yesterday I searched all the government websites. I rang numerous numbers, only to find that there were no answers. Then—since I recalled that my grandfather gave the BBC its original charter—I got on to the BBC, and all night went through their
874
website. I took 634 farms and analysed them: how many animals they had, where they were on the map and I practically burst into tears as I realised, looking through the information, that there was the farm cow that had gone and the farm goat. There were 317,000 sheep that had disappeared and 101,000 cattle; and then there were 6,750 pigs. Then there came 100 goats, the one goat and finally the two water buffalo in the south and the one llama. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, and I thought about the two sheep that my sister and I had. One was called Gert and the other one Daisy. They disappeared one day. We thought they had been stolen, but in fact they died of disease.
This problem is one that is emotional at one level and economic at another, but the knock-on effects are very serious indeed. I now move to money. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, mentioned the agricultural workforce. Of course they have the lowest remuneration in the country—£7,500: the lowest pay in 25 years. At the moment there are 7,500 public servants helping these poor impoverished people. We have the valuers at £1,200 a day. I respect the valuers, but they have lost their business as auctioneers. We have the vets at £420 a day; we have the Army at £60 a day; and then we have the farmers themselves, with virtually nothing.
I come to the only reasonable and practical solution. I would like to ask the Government whether, for each sheep, they would make an immediate grant of £100, no questions asked; for each cow £500, no questions asked. It would mean a total of £125 million for cattle and about £50 million for the sheep.
Then we have to look at the banking sector. I worked for a while with the Midland Bank and the farmers' banks. You cannot trust banks. They look after their assets and they know the underlying value of the land. We are talking about a short-term problem where the Government must step in behind the banks and provide the necessary guarantees to prevent foreclosure: otherwise grants or anything else will end up in the hands of the banks themselves. I believe that the Minister has been talking to banks and perhaps she could say something about this. There is a willingness to help, but the Government must be behind them. It is a crisis that can turn into a disaster. I believe something can be done, but unfortunately in our "blame culture" only the Government can take the responsibility.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in The Times on 24th March I put forward the idea of declaring a national emergency and, by courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I would like to expand on that today. The noble Baroness has kindly said that she owes me a letter about it, and I look forward to receiving it. I know that she and her colleagues have an enormous workload.
At Christian Aid I have had some experience of emergencies overseas and of public appeals and the importance of uniting all the charities involved, with

875
the media, in what we call the Disasters Emergency Committee. I was also on the panel of the Telethon in the South West. I suggest that recognised major disasters such as Aberfan and foot and mouth should be officially declared to be national emergencies, for two simple reasons.
They draw attention to an acute situation and they unite the nation in response. In the present case we have already had some important individual donations and some major appeals by newspapers and the Churches, but we have still not had any indication from the Government that, in recognising the true extent of the crisis, they are prepared both to declare an emergency and either launch or support a national appeal. Why?
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in reply to my recent question, said that an emergency and perhaps an appeal might give the wrong signal to the rest of the world. We have heard this argument many times from the Prime Minister and others. It is frankly too late to worry about giving the wrong signal. The emergency has arrived, and it is potentially far worse in scale than the previous outbreak, as we have heard. It affects very nearly the whole country, because of the greater mobility of people and livestock, the consequential losses and its permeation of the food chain. It is already an emergency, although the Government insist on using the word "crisis".
Quite rightly, the Prime Minister has recognised that the foot and mouth outbreak has affected the wider economy and that we have had to send out "come hither" messages to potential visitors and tour operators. I am sending exactly the same message to my American cousins, who refuse to come to west Dorset. We must go on sending these messages, but it does not mean that for internal UK consumption we are inhibited from recognising an emergency. We should come clean and consider our farmers and farm workers first. We do not need more grisly images to convince ourselves of the extent of the problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, they need to have the whole nation behind them. Above all, they need the confidence that there will be a time when they can rebuild their herds and start again. As has been shown, they need the money for consequential losses as well as farming, which the Government may not have. We have heard examples of this from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke.
I hope that there is not another reason that the Government, or some sections of it, are unwilling to declare an emergency. Have some Ministers given way to the critics of farmers, such as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, or to the cynical columnists in some newspapers, who go on about the need to look beyond farmers and stop endless subsidies for the sake of one small sector? These cynics have a point to make but they should not make it now, and I assume the Government are ignoring them.
Of course we have to look forward and plan the future of the countryside; we must speed up Agenda 2000 and CAP reform: and perhaps this crisis will help.
876
It is an urgent matter, and perhaps the Minister will confirm that as well. Of course farmers' sons recognise that they will have to look for other forms of employment or the kind of regeneration about which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke. Perhaps in upland areas they will be called "countryside managers" and will be paid to keep token sheep and cows in key areas of the landscape, rather like deer in a tapestry. We can contemplate this, but they are not able to do any of this during an emergency.
We are concerned with a much more immediate problem: how to support those who are suffering today. Farmers are very proud, robust and versatile people. Perhaps that is why they have not appeared in the statistics of the noble Lord, Lord Lea; but just because they rarely complain we should not be fooled that they can get by without generous support. Whatever the Government say about an emergency, they should not be afraid to launch a national appeal through television to publicise the work of the farming charities.
I must make it clear that I recognise the work of existing charities and the value of individual donations to such organisations as RABI, the ARC Addington Fund, the Farm Crisis Network and the Archbishop's appeal. But there will be many people in urban areas especially, far from the affected areas, who will Want to respond, who are not aware of the farming charities and who would like to support a central fund that is formally backed by the Government. That would also help the Government to support the many who are even now making hardship claims through local government—I have a form which has come to me as a parish clerk—and other channels that the Government are unlikely to meet without a national appeal.
Last weekend saw the levelling out of the daily number of cases. Although we are a long way from predicting the end, it is possible that the media will begin to lose interest. The BBC and Channel 4 will continue, but ordinary news media will move on. It is vital that an appeal goes out as soon as possible in order to command the proper attention.
My noble friend Lord Palmer was sorry that he was unable to stay for this debate, but he told me of a case of a distressed farmer in Northumberland who had to wait nearly 24 hours for a vet. That is similar to the tale told by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. He, along with others, will write to the noble Baroness.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I have a farm and some rare breeds—not many—and some pigs again, not very many. The economic damage that has been caused by the crisis is already calculated to be about £12 billion. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was excellent in showing a particular aspect of it. In our previous debate, I said that we knew how to deal with foot and mouth, but I now know that I was wrong. We do not. Not only was the wrong policy of slaughter carried out, it is only just ceasing to be carried out with

877
Crimean War inefficiency. I have chapter and verse of that from many friends in Cumbria who are far too numerous to catalogue.
A public-spirited publisher, Mr Peter Kindersley, rang round the veterinary and scientific community to find a quality scientist who would challenge the slaughter policy. Many refused saying that their jobs were not worth it. Finally, Dr Sumption of the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, who is not, as my noble friend Lord Soulsby, said, a man of intellectual knowledge who knows nothing about foot and mouth, produced a paper calling for vaccination. Everything in the paper is backed up with scientific sources and evidence. The Prime Minister has seen it and has cross-questioned Dr Sumption in the presence of Jim Scudamore. I shall return to the meeting later.
Mr Scudamore attempted to disprove Dr Sumption's thesis. He has replied to these allegations, which were as follows. First, vaccination only protects against a single strain. The answer was yes, but we have only one strain. Secondly, vaccination is not 100 per cent effective. The answer was that no vaccination is. The old vaccine reduces viral replication and spread, while modern ones prevent passing infection to animals in contact. Thirdly, vaccination requires repeat doses. The answer was that that was rubbish. High modern payload vaccines require only one dose. Fourthly, animals can continue to harbour the virus with no visible signs. The answer was that the risk is negligible. There have been no documented cases of a vaccinated carrier animal passing on the disease.
The EU—not my favourite organisation, but I shall give the devil its due—proposed blood testing to detect antibodies to protein after emergency vaccination. These are shown only in the live virus, not in vaccination. It was done successfully in Korea last year.
The fifth allegation was that animals can still transmit the virus after vaccination, and the answer was that the level of virus produced by vaccinated animals is markedly less. Sixthly, laboratory tests are hard to interpret, but they are not, according to David Mackay who co-ordinated a summary of a European Union Concerted Action project CT 93/0909, which said that reliable and reproducible assays to measure antibodies in FMDVNS proteins had been developed and extensively validated.
Seventhly, animals must be detained indefinitely after vaccination. The answer was that that did not accord with the EU strategy document. Eighthly, vaccination does not give complete immunity to all sheep. The answer was that it is a fiction that complete immunity is required to impact on a diseased flock. Herd immunity depends on the transmutability of the virus. With no controls or vaccination, an animal could infect up to 72 others. In these circumstances, to ensure a spontaneous decay, a level of 98 per cent effective immunisation would be necessary. That is without movement, control or stamping out. Additional measures are all in place, so complete
878
immunity is not necessary. Modern optimum vaccine constituents can immunise sheep so that there is no transmission to other animals.
There are another four paragraphs of questions, all of which have been completely and utterly repudiated by Dr Sumption with intellectual vigour—I hasten to add.
I return to the Prime Minister and his meeting on Monday. Will the noble Baroness to whom I gave notice of these questions answer this one? Has Dr Kitchen of the Pirbright laboratory accepted that the risk of vaccinated animals being carriers is theoretical and not actual? Has he accepted the benefits of vaccination? Has MAFF realised that the laboratory was short of vaccine and placed a substantial order last week? Did the Prime Minister accept that vaccinated animals did not need to be slaughtered?
An answer of "yes" to these questions is the impression of three people who attended that meeting, one of whom is the director general of the National Trust who has written a letter to the The Times advocating vaccination. All Dr Sumption's data are in the public domain. MAFF should have learned, marked and inwardly digested it. It has behaved like the doctors at a Vienna lying-in house, who forbade Dr Semmelweiss to make gynaecologists wash their hands with carbolic soap to reduce the danger of puerperal fever. When they did, deaths fell, but when they stopped, deaths went up again.
MAFF has installed the Crimean War mentality into the NFU, which unfortunately has shown the same sort of bovine reactionary stubbornness to vaccination. Instead of having open minds and questing spirits, MAFF has behaved like old Lord Raglan, and the ministry has overseen a control exercise which makes Scutari look like St. Thomas's and Balaclava look like the battle of El Alamein. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has fought with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions like Cardigan fought Lord Lucan. I am sorry to have to say that to the noble Baroness who has been a pillar of strength and help to us all. She is doing her best.
We must vaccinate. The scientific evidence, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Soulsby said, is overwhelmingly in its favour. Had we done so, the epidemic could have been brought to an end long ago, as it was in Macedonia.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for the debate. I have no direct interest to declare, other than being a tourist who visits and stays in Cornwall at least twice a year. My wife and I were due to go there in March, but, following advice that was then being given, we decided not to go. We were aware, too, that many attractions, such as National Trust houses and gardens and country and coastal paths, were closed. Happily most of those decisions have now been reversed and we shall be returning to Cornwall in June.

879
However, i know from my contacts there that there is extreme concern about what is happening to tourism and what it will be like later this year. There is even concern about what it may be like in 2002. My contacts say that, although cancellations of bookings are now declining to some extent, they are extremely worried that hardly any bookings are being made for later this year and certainly not for 2002. What has transpired since our last debate on 13th March is a greater awareness of the need to spend more time addressing the problems which arise from FMD and which face the tourist industry. We need to see what can be done to try to assist in that area as well as on the agricultural side.
I am sorry to say that today I have been somewhat disappointed that those other aspects of the crisis that currently face us have not been addressed in perhaps the way I would have hoped, though notable exceptions came from the contributions of my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Luke.
For example, the GDP generated by tourism in Cornwall is four times that generated by agriculture. Other noble Lords gave examples earlier in the debate showing that the ratio is much higher in other parts of the country. It is important that we give even more attention to that topic than has been done so far.
Without any question, full support and sympathy is given by the tourist community to their colleagues in the agricultural industry; in fact they are intertwined in many areas. The point has been made forcefully to me that, while farmers are being compensated when, regrettably, culling has to take place—indeed, in the view of many they are being generously compensated—the position is quite different in the tourist industry. There is a feeling that the same voice is not speaking up on their behalf. Many in the industry are struggling; many are facing bankruptcy; many will close during the course of this year unless further support is offered to them.
It is true that some reliefs are on offer. But no direct compensation is presently in prospect for any of those in the tourism industry. I am pleased to hear that the right honourable Michael Meacher is heading up a task force to look at the effects on the rural economy. I hope that it will move speedily and be given all-party support. I hope too that this issue will be given equal recognition as one which needs high priority over the course of the next few weeks.
It would help greatly if we could get a better balance in the media. I pick up here on some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I join others at this point in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayman, not simply for all the work she has done, but especially for her valiant efforts in the media, particularly with the BBC. I have heard her on many occasions recently endeavouring to separate the facts from the fiction and scaremongering which seem to be the way of life these days in many parts of the media. When I listen to Radio 4 news programmes I sometimes think the BBC's initials stand for the "British Blaming Corporation".
880
In quieter times it would be interesting to have an independent assessment made of the cost of the modern style of media coverage to the British economy. I certainly believe that the media have greatly damaged our tourist industry, both internally and externally. At some time we have the right to raise the issues of responsibility and accountability, certainly for publicly-funded operators.
Those are personal views and I do not ask the Minister to respond to those points. But I ask whether the media will be invited to join the Meacher task force. If not, why not? As they have so much influence in these areas, this is an opportunity for them to make a start in accepting a degree of responsibility and involvement beyond that which we currently see.
May I suggest that the task force gives urgent consideration to making further provision for rural businesses primarily dependent on tourism to have payment of their second instalment of their 2000–2001 tax assessment during the summer deferred for six months? This is not simply to have a sympathetic and understanding business approach adopted by the Inland Revenue; it is to move to a positive and concrete deferment through to January 2002. Technically, even though arguments will be raised against it, it is possible to do that with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Otherwise I fear that many businesses will close and many jobs will be lost. which will cost more in the long term than offering a tax break now.
Finally, can my noble friend say whether she is entirely happy with the pace at which local councils and authorities are re-opening footpaths in both coastal and countryside areas and National Trust properties and gardens? Is she aware that in Sussex, which has not had a case of foot and mouth, most of the National Trust houses and gardens have been closed for weeks? It is only now that they are about to reopen. Is she aware that in the whole of Yorkshire, the largest county in England and one with little problem from the disease, only five properties and gardens in the whole of the Yorkshire National Trust area are open to the public? Why?
One has the impression that in some areas either the county or local authorities are deliberately delaying the reopening of the countryside. I hope that that is not the case. Can the Minister say whether any further action can be taken to get those councils and authorities moving? If not, and if there are still difficulties, will she ensure that those in the local tourist industries know who is responsible for the failure to allow people into those areas?
6.56 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Jopling on stepping into the shoes of my noble friend Lord Cranborne at short notice and on introducing this debate in such a forceful and effective way.
With the total head of livestock condemned for slaughter passing the 1 million mark and the number of outbreaks of the disease approaching 1,000, one is

881
forcibly reminded once again of the appalling waste resulting from this disease and the efforts to stop its spread.
The spread of the disease must have been greatly aided by the delays that have occurred, and still seem to be occurring, between diagnosis and slaughter and, more than the Government have yet admitted, between slaughter and carcass disposal, in particular from the activities of carrion feeders and also from the process of incineration itself, at least in the early stages. If those delays could have been avoided from the outset, we should surely not be in the situation we are in today. Yet despite the Government's endeavours to remove the delays, the number of animals awaiting slaughter seems to be increasing, not diminishing. When do the Government expect the backlog to be disposed of?
In addition, policy changes are announced without their coming into immediate effect, or without it sometimes becoming clear to which parts of the country they are to be taken to apply. That has been true in some cases of the three kilometre pre-emptive culling policy. As a result of that lack of clarity, farmers can find themselves exposed to some very painful, unexpected and apparently inexplicable decisions. I learnt last week of a neighbouring farmer in north Lancashire who bought 15 sheep from a farmer who had himself bought sheep at Longtown market on 17th February which later contracted FMD.
My neighbour took huge care to keep his 15 sheep, which had not themselves come from Longtown, isolated from the rest of his flock, which they were for more than 40 days—way past the incubation period—with no sign of the disease appearing and with MAFF monitoring the situation. Then one day the men from MAFF came and announced, for no new apparent reason, that all his 450 sheep and 750 lambs had to be slaughtered. I do not want to say whether on balance such a decision was right or wrong. But its cruelty, arbitrariness and apparent irrationality are very hard for a farmer to accept.
Much will be done in the way of securing acceptance, however reluctant, from farmers for government policy, however drastic, if the compensation is generous enough. I should say at this moment that my wife keeps a small flock of sheep, not yet condemned so far as I know, and we also have tenants with sheep and cattle. From what I have heard, compensation seems to be based on reasonable calculations of market value, but who knows what the cost of rebuilding herds will be, particularly in the context of reduced supply and sudden demand, as, among others, my noble friend Lord Jopling warned this afternoon. Will the Government watch that?
I should like to put in a word for farmers who have lost all their income. The Government do not compensate for loss of income. Farmers with livestock, but without a dairy herd and therefore reliant for their income on sales of lambs or young cattle, now earn nothing. Tenant farmers may well not be able to pay their rent. They may also be unable to
882
pay for the feed necessary to keep their livestock alive on exhausted pastures from which they cannot remove them.
A fortnight ago the Government introduced a welfare disposal scheme under which, in those circumstances, the Government would pay for the removal and slaughter of such stock. However, my information is that the scheme has been completely inundated with applications and that farmers can now expect a delay of many weeks. That entirely defeats the point of such a scheme.
The situation is rapidly deteriorating. On humanitarian grounds, will the Government urgently consider making advance cash payments to farmers of a percentage of what they will be entitled to eventually and so enable them to stay in business and to treat their stock humanely? I have provided the noble Baroness with notice of that question.
What progress have the Government made over the past week on the subject of vaccination? A number of noble Lords are interested to hear what the Government have to say on that subject. Are they considering it for rare breeds? What was their reaction to the requests that I understand were put to them by the Soil Association and the National Trust in that respect this week? I note the caution of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and others in regard to that matter.
I see no future in vaccination if it is known that it must be followed by culling. It would simply demoralise the farmer, whose co-operation is needed to carry out the vaccination. What is the Government's thinking on that issue? Are they still considering using vaccination to halt the spread of FMD? I believe that today that policy is being put into effect in the Netherlands. What do the Government say to the proposal made last week in the House by my noble friend Lord Vinson, taken up today by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that the dairy herd could be vaccinated without any effect on exports. Is it true that the Food Standards Agency has imposed the impractical condition that milk so produced would need to be labelled? I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness could provide answers to those questions.
Finally, of course there has to be an inquiry, an open-minded inquiry and not one whose terms of reference cast aspersions on farming generally, as the Minister for the Environment was reported to envisage when he spoke out of turn yesterday. Along with my noble friend Lord Jopling, I believe that the quicker we set up such an inquiry the better. We can discuss the terms of reference on another occasion.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jopling for the judgment and experience that he has brought to the debate. Perhaps I can remind your Lordships of a sample timetable of a small farm during this catastrophe that has probably been repeated many times across the country. This example comes from Yorkshire. The farmer discovered symptoms of the disease at 8.30 a.m. on a

883
Thursday. Immediately he contacted MAFF and was told that a vet could not come until the next day, Friday. The farmer then spoke to his own vet who, after conducting his rounds, arrived on the evening of Thursday arid confirmed the disease. On Saturday the Ministry vet appeared, 48 hours after the notification and 24 hours later than he said he would. He then insisted that samples be sent off for analysis, which took another 48 hours, and four days after the notification the animals were slaughtered.
Several noble Lords have drawn attention to the need for speed and urgency, commodities apparently lacking in MAFF thinking. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the Army has been standing by from day two of the outbreak. Even when the Army was brought in, it was done by stealth in some cases, as though MAFF wanted to keep control of the operation. As we know, not only were there differences with the MoD, but there were also differences with the Department of the Environment.
Of the many criticisms that frequently have been levelled at MAFF, I suggest that the most insidious is the reluctance to relate to farmers themselves. Of course, it would be disingenuous to say that all MAFF's shortcomings start with this Government. Of course, the Ministry was in place during the previous administration, but the current Government have been left holding the parcel when the music stopped, so they and the Minister in another place must take responsibility for the shortcomings of that department.
By contrast, I pay tribute, as many noble Lords have, to the handling of this crisis by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and for her patience and courtesy not only towards your Lordships but also in the media. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Byford, who has shown responsibility and constructiveness throughout this crisis. I also want to refer to my honourable friend Mr Tim Yeo, who, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, in the early days of this crisis went out of his way to support the Government in the action that they took. in good faith, he took that action to he for the best. Only after the delay, indecision and bureaucracy—what a cocktail—shown by MAFF, quite correctly he became increasingly critical for fundamental, not political, reasons.
Of course, one must feel some sympathy with the Prime Minister. In the first instance, he was entitled to look to the relevant Minister for his briefing. All the indications are that that was less than adequate and no doubt contributed to the dithering which was the overriding impression conveyed by the Government. But it is to be welcomed that at a late hour he has taken control of measures to deal with the appalling tragedy and that at last he is taking advice from outside bodies which are thoroughly qualified to give it.
I say to some noble Lords opposite that I make those references to the Prime Minister not as leader of the political party in government but as leader of the country. A crisis such as this demands strong but, above all, immediate leadership, as was demonstrated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher during another national crisis, the invasion of the Falklands.
884
In conclusion, I have a specific question for the Minister. The cost of this crisis is estimated at between —9 billion and —10 billion. Can she give us any indication whether that will affect the Chancellor's Budget estimates?
7.8 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I am grateful to he able to speak in the gap. I am also grateful to my noble friend who introduced the debate and to Michael Meacher for suggesting that there will be a public inquiry following the conclusion of this miserable episode. The emphasis is on the word "public" because such an inquiry must be wide-ranging and relentless. That is the least that we owe to those who have been so adversely affected over recent weeks.
One of the first tasks of that inquiry will be to consider the origin of this scourge. In 1967 it was fairly quickly and incontrovertibly established that the origin was the importation of Argentinian lamb. On this occasion there is no such clear evidence, but the general and good-faith view is that it was caused by some form of import, as foot and mouth disease is not a home-grown scourge.
That requires us to consider more effectively, but none the less more fundamentally, what our import policy should be in respect of matters of animal welfare and animal hygiene. For generations British agriculture has lived alongside substantial imports from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, countries with great climatic advantages, but that operate to standards that are broadly similar to those of our own agricultural industry.
Today matters are rather different. My noble friend Lady Trumpington mentioned a list of countries from which we import pig meat. Indeed, now our imports range much more widely in terms of agricultural sources than would have been true a generation ago.
There is also the growing and not much noticed development of imported processed foods. They are imported in substantial quantities which are likely to increase. In my view that is a difficulty waiting to reveal itself. Perhaps most importantly, a problem that attracts our attention is not an immediate one, but one that is just over the brow into the future. It is the enlargement of the European Community to include countries of eastern Europe whose agricultural challenge is often thought of in terms of production. I make no comment on that or on the skill of those domestic agricultures. However, as regards Turkey, for example, there is a different proposition in terms of animal health and enforceability. A challenge is there awaiting us and that factor is as much in the minds of our negotiators as are all the others which are contained within accession.
I believe that we should move forward and try to develop a policy for import regulation in respect of agriculture which will sustain the interests we have discussed today. It must lie at the heart of the welfare of the nation at large and the narrower issues of animal husbandry, welfare and hygiene. However, if that is our resolve—and we are in the uniquely happy

885
position of being able to fashion a policy based upon our island status and having the insular characteristics of control—we must be prepared to pursue it with determination. It must be against a background of the rhetoric of the world's trade organisations and their ambitions for wider and more open markets for agricultural produce, all an aspect of the fashionable globalisation of our trade and economies. We must put down our marker in respect of our interests and I hope that the inquiry which will conclude this foot and mouth epidemic will enable us to make an opening bid to secure for our own agriculture and people by our own energies a deal which is equitable.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for introducing it. There have been interesting differences between this debate and that held on 13th March in which many of your Lordships also spoke. I have found this debate a little less focused but that is not bad. Perhaps it has been less focused because we are less certain of the right way in which to proceed. Noble Lords expressed their view, strongly in some cases, but it is clear that we can only follow the best advice of the scientists.
Another particular theme that has run through the debate has been the reaction of politicians, the public and the media to a crisis or emergency occurring outside the country—mention was made of the Gulf and Falklands wars—compared with the reaction to such an event occurring inside the country. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, it is unfortunate that when an emergency occurs inside the country there is a huge temptation to treat it as an opportunity for political spin. If someone takes time to make a decision, they are delaying and dithering. However, if someone makes a decisive decision, it is a knee-jerk reaction and rushed.
From time to time, the length of time taken to make decisions will be wrong. I am not in a position to defend the Government and shall later comment on those matters which could have been better handled. However, the media are to blame for the fact that in respect of many aspects of this situation we have descended into a blame culture. The media enjoy watching politicians tearing each other apart. I do not believe that the public do, and people living in the countryside and the farmers certainly do not. They are not interested in the political games which are played here and they are thoroughly depressed by them. Furthermore, we could learn from our reaction to emergencies which occur overseas and could behave better in respect of emergencies which occur here.
The noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Inglewood, made a strong case for there being no division between town and country. They and other noble Lords said that the issue needed to be addressed by both, stating that what is happening in the countryside strongly affects towns and cities. A good example was pottery production for the National Trust, but many other industries will suffer a downturn in their sales this year
886
as a direct result of the epidemic. Even the Countryside Agency's annual report, which was published yesterday, held a surprise. Its final section showed that the views of town and country people are similar when it comes to the issues which affect the countryside. There are only marginal differences of opinion on the importance of the countryside. We should appreciate that fact because too often we hear about the divisions.
My noble friend Lord Redesdale raised the important point that the poorest areas are hit hardest. I believe that the Government appreciate that in Cumbria and Devon and their surrounding areas in the North West and the South West not only farming and tourism but all businesses have been affected. Many noble Lords have said that 100 per cent rate relief should be available and that local authorities should be fully reimbursed for the cost of that.
It has also been suggested that interest-free loans to a generous ceiling should be available to businesses. A business employing a number of people is as worthy of support as a small business using perhaps one self-employed person. We on these Benches believe that the Government's blanket national approach causes difficulties and that there is a strong case for a regional approach so that the worst hit areas can receive the greatest aid. Will the Minister say what amount of contingency money will be filtered through to those worst affected areas?
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the problems that she faces. She highlighted the need for information to be as clear as possible. During the previous debate and during our debate on the recent Statement we referred to the DSS issuing clear guidelines. Are those guidelines available to Members of your Lordships' House through the Library, showing what information has been sent to farmers who want to claim income support or the working families' tax credit? People's entitlement must be made clear.
I agree with other noble Lords that the contribution of my noble friend Lord Greaves was most valuable to our debate. Using the example of outdoor centres, he painted a graphic picture of the losses that are being experienced by people outside farming. He highlighted the fact that local authority risk assessments are most urgently needed. I echo that because they will enable the various counties to take different approaches.
I want to be more specific about the approaches which some local authorities are taking, particularly in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I must declare an interest as a member of Somerset County Council. I believe that local authorities have been left out of the circle of those who have done a good job in tackling the crisis. Today noble Lords have spoken of delays in issuing licences. However, local authorities responsible for issuing licences to enable animals to be slaughtered for meat, which is highly important while we continue to supply our domestic market, have in almost all cases been able to issue the licences within minutes or hours. They have set up emergency hotlines and dealt with the

887
matter with the utmost efficiency. The offices of some local authorities are open 24 hours a day and staff are drafted in as necessary.
I have been sent a large number of examples of good practice by local authorities of all political persuasions. It is quite clear that councils throughout Cornwall, for example, have provided local solutions and offered businesses rate relief, in many cases on a manual basis. That could not be done on a national basis. Suffolk County Council, for example, has looked at its footpaths on a case-by-case basis—I believe that the Prime Minister referred to it—and works with parish councils to reopen the countryside as fast as it reasonably can. Swindon's office is open 24 hours a day. All of the councils that have contacted me address the important issues each morning in their working groups. I hope that the Minister and noble Lords recognise that local authorities have done their best in this situation.
I turn to footpaths. One of the reasons why it has been difficult for counties adjacent to infected areas to reopen their footpaths, perhaps in the way that the Minister, Michael Meacher, would have liked, is that when a footpath was closed by order it was done simply by informing the Minister. However, I believe that the order made on 16th March, which provided a different power to close footpaths, revoked parts of the earlier order. The effect is that once a local authority has opened footpaths, it cannot close them again without consulting the Minister in relation to every specific site. Counties next to infected areas are very nervous about reopening footpaths because to close them again is a difficult bureaucratic procedure. The Minister appears to be slightly doubtful. I shall supply the noble Baroness with the details that have been provided to me. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me further information on this.
We had a similar difficulty over roads. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whether local authorities had power to close roads. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred specifically to Exmoor, Dartmoor and the New Forest, where road closure is crucial, particularly in the case of the first two. They are surrounded by infected areas. Noble Lords are well aware of the threat to the red deer herd. The Minister said that local authorities could close roads, but it emerged subsequently that local authorities did not have that power. The Minister has kindly written to me to clarify the position. I understand that they can close roads in a controlled area if such a prohibition has first been approved by the Minister. If all local interests get together and come up with a definite plan for road closures, how much time will elapse between the submission of that plan and ministerial approval? If that is deemed necessary by all the local community, it is because the situation is urgent.
Many noble Lords this afternoon have described graphically upland areas that may well be denuded of stock. Is the Ministry considering a special restocking grant for upland areas? That is certain to be an issue. Noble Lords have referred to the link between farming and tourism. I believe that for both interests a restocking grant would be very important.
888
A number of noble Lords have spoken about food policy, which I believe is critical. Have the Government made any further progress with the code of practice for supermarkets to ensure that they stock more locally-produced food? What progress is being made by the Countryside Agency's "Eat the View" campaign which is supposed to promote local food to local people? Will the Ministry of Defence review its policies? According to a Question for Written Answer, I was informed that last year the ministry bought over 52 per cent of its meat from abroad. Will the ministry consider supporting farmers by buying British meat?
Finally, I thank the Minister very much for her courtesy in replying to letters, points raised in relation to Statements and the debate this afternoon.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Jopling for so ably giving us the opportunity to voice our ideas, doubts and fears. The debate has been of great interest. I hope that the Government will find much to ponder on and that in some instances the debate will help them to remedy the situation. My noble friend referred to early errors by MAFF, the delays caused and acceptance by the department that the outbreak of the disease had grown beyond its ability to cope on its own. We have pushed for, and welcomed, the invitation to the Army to help vets and many others who are fighting this disease.
The question of restocking for the future has just been raised. That matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and my noble friend Lord Jopling. I shall return to that later. Reference was also made to the illegal import of food, in particular pigmeat, to which my noble friend and other noble Lords have responded. The call for a public inquiry has been supported by many noble Lords on all sides of the House.
I turn quickly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I have never considered this to be a town and country issue. All of us, whether we live in town or country, rely on food, and I believe that most of us consume UK-produced food. This industry is crucial to each and every one of us; it is not a town and country issue. Although the noble Lord said he believed there was a lot of fuss and hysteria and tried to put it into perspective, 1,000 confirmed cases and the identification of over 1 million animals amount to a crisis.
The main problem about the foot and mouth outbreak has been lack of leadership and the muddle between the DETR and MAFF, particularly at the early stages, which caused a delay in the burial of many carcasses. The slaughter policy was right, and we supported it, but over the weeks insufficient logistical support was obtained and organised. Slaughter should have taken place within 24 hours and disposal 24 hours after that. Were laboratory tests really necessary rather than acceptance of the decision of vets on site to confirm the disease? Should farm valuations have been made when the disease was obviously getting out of control, or should they have been taken at face value? All of these have added to the delays.

889
The depth of the outbreak in certain areas was obvious by 13th March. The speed at which it spread was alarming, but in the past three weeks its pace has been terrifying. There has been general agreement among the professionals and politicians that swift eradication is necessary and, with few exceptions, the Government's slaughter policy has been supported. Unfortunately, that good slaughter policy was damaged both by delays in the time taken to kill the infected animals immediately diagnosed and the time required to dispose of the carcasses.
As reported at col. 314 of Hansard on 8th March, I asked the Minister to involve the Army, but some weeks elapsed before its involvement. By then I had received many messages from people who were outraged that animals had been left to lie in the fields where they had been killed. I have been assured by many others, including microbiologists, that microbes continue to live after animals have been put down. Like my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Ferrers and other noble Lords, I fail to comprehend how a sandwich made from the wrong meat can travel halfway round the world and infect healthy animals, even after it has been cooked and processed, presumably, yet infected sheep and cows can be safely left in the open for days to be scavenged on by birds and animals without those carcasses becoming a source of further illness.
In connection with the import of suspect meat, can the Minister confirm, as other noble Lords have suggested, that 37,000 tonnes of pigmeat have been allowed into the United Kingdom over the past two years from countries where foot and mouth is endemic? My noble friend Lady Trumpington referred to that matter. Will the Minister also tell the House what measures the Government have taken to tighten up controls on commercial and private meat imports since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease was acknowledged? Can the noble Baroness say how many countries have suffered outbreaks of this disease in the past year? Will she also tell us what role the Food Standards Agency has played, or does monitoring rely only on trading standards officers? My noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Biffen and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, all referred to South African meat.
Perhaps I may move on. The transport by lorry of infected bodies, once killed, over the length and breadth of the country seemed to be asking for trouble. I do not have medical training, but I understand from others that barrier nursing involves layers of protective clothing, face masks, airlocks on doors and the use of gloves at all times. Even then, doctors and nurses sometimes succumb to disease. Are we really to believe that sealed lorries are foolproof against the leakage of body fluids? Are we doing all that is necessary to ensure that these highly infectious creatures which are being moved around the country are completely safe? In the face of anecdotal evidence, are we to believe that the lorries used in this fashion have always been thoroughly sealed? I notice that in tonight's Evening Standard there is a question about that with regard to Cheshire.
890
I understand the problems of burial, particularly when in so many places the water table is higher than for years. I can believe that there is a dearth of railway sleepers with which to start fires, but why cannot we use the trees that were blown down last autumn or coppice wood? Is the Minister aware of the report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph to the effect that a member of the Intervention Board had stated that it was proposed to take slaughtered sheep by lorry from west Wales across to Suffolk for burial?
It is the simple things that strike hardest. No one is manning the emergency telephones of MAFF in Cumbria after 5.30 p.m. In contrast, when the Environment Agency was coping with the floods, its floodline extension was manned until midnight during the months of October, November and December last year. Why cannot MAFF do the same? Notifications of possible disease outbreaks between those hours have to be entrusted to an answering machine. Not only is that inefficient, but it must also make the planning work for vets almost impossible and it must truly be the last straw for those phoning to announce the end of their hopes.
In Newcastle upon Tyne, I understand that the office dealing with the animal welfare scheme has six faxes but no computer. I do not know whether that is because one is not available or because it has broken down. Presumably, however, the number of applications reaching the office has risen dramatically. Will the Minister give us totals, species by species, over the past three weeks? Will she also confirm that some 1 million animals are waiting? What help will the Government give to farmers who are running out of feed and are having to keep their animals in unacceptable conditions? What help will there be for those with over 30-month cattle and lambs gaining their second teeth?
I turn to the employment of vets. When the noble Baroness made her previous Statement on 27th March she challenged me. I have paperwork from Dr Dick White of the University of Cambridge Veterinary School. His students offered help to MAFF in Bury St Edmunds but were turned down. On their own initiative they kept trying and are now working in Devon. The cases of Rob Turnbull and Mr Haxby were written up in the Veterinary Record of 31st March. They offered their services but they were turned down because they were over 65.
Other noble Lords have referred to delays. Delays have meant that more flocks and herds have been infected than should have been necessary. The delays have resulted in many other trades and professions being damaged. Tourism is an obvious example. Tourism is very important to us. My noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Luke and many other noble Lords referred to it.

891
It is coming up to Easter when traditionally many country folk earn their first bread. They are also looking to their summer bookings. This year many of them will earn nothing. Will the Minister confirm that the appropriate agencies will deal swiftly and compassionately with redundancy payments, job seeker's allowance and tax credits for people who are laid off, made redundant or are simply unable to earn their living? That should include hotels and pubs, zoos, wildlife parks, marinas and other canal-based leisure industries. livery stables and those who supply them. Noble Lords have also referred to outward bound schools and outward bound activities. I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
The whole issue of banking and help with banking is crucial. My noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Reay mentioned this. Indeed, when the Minister made her previous Statement, she was about to go on to a meeting on that subject. We look forward to hearing what she has to say.
We are in the midst of a disaster. I say to the Minister that my figures are salutary. More than 1 million animals have been identified. The figures I took from the MAFF website on Monday 2nd April show that some 379,000 animals are awaiting slaughter and that 192,000 are awaiting disposal. At the current rate of backlog clearance, it will take 18 days to clear the slaughter backlog and 27 days to clear the disposal backlog. Those are horrendous figures. The backlogs must be dealt with. I hope that our debate today will have given more power to the Minister's elbow. We want her to be able to succeed.
I wish to make two further points. First, last year, the Newlands Adventure Centre in Keswick took £25,000 in March alone. In the same month this year, it took £9.87. Secondly, Mr James Sankey, a Shropshire farmer, has hundreds of sheep that he over-winters on his land. He is under Schedule 8 and his sheep are stuck. He was on Radio Shropshire this morning explaining his plight. He has been told that it will take 11 days before the welfare animal slaughter scheme can be applied to him. The Intervention Board is totally inadequate and is unable to cope with the cases being passed to it.
A noble Lord said that not many people have been affected. To date, 18 counties have been affected. But I conclude on a much more hopeful note. We all share the hope that the disease will be controlled and eradicated. As I said earlier, I have never considered it a case of town against country. What we wish to see is the improved handling of the crisis. That must be brought under control. Eradication must be much more speedily achieved. We all look forward to the rebuilding of our farms and our rural businesses and to the return of some form of normality, not just for them but for all our citizens.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am enormously touched by the kindness shown to me on a personal level by every speaker in the debate. I have to apologise to the House and, in particular, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Strange, for not being in the Chamber for their speeches. I understand that they too were very kind. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that she was under an illusion when she thought that I was going for a cup of tea. I was actually trying to attend to some business not unrelated to the matters under discussion today. I understand that while I was away the noble Baroness suggested that I should be made Minister for Zoos. That is in some ways an attractive portfolio, but I think that I shall have to maintain my current responsibilities, for the moment anyway.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Only in addition!
Baroness Hayman: Only in addition. On the zoo question, I can perhaps tell the noble Baroness that the Standing Veterinary Committee in Europe was today considering the issue of the vaccination of zoo animals with a view to allowing it without impeding the movement of livestock. However, that is not a cure-all even for zoos, which depend on international trade not only in animals but in semen and embryos. II is not a simple matter but it is one that we are addressing.
On the seven occasions that we have debated these issues, I welcomed the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I welcomed the opportunity to take my place in your Lordships' House. Some very useful suggestions have been made. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that I have taken those back and, on occasion, I have managed to deliver on them. I refer, for example, to matters such as the noble Lord's sheep, the noble Countess's cheese—for which I still have hopes—or the issue of the valuation of livestock under one of the disposal schemes raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. I hope that that issue has now been resolved. I have taken away specific issues, as I have taken away general issues.
Equally, in today's debate certain important and practical issues have been raised. No one could listen to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, describe the situation in Cumbria and its future without thinking seriously about what we shall have to do for that region, because the distress caused by the destruction of the local economy has been enormous. It will have to be rebuilt. Again, broader points have been made as regards the importance of learning from this episode and of undertaking thorough reviews. Furthermore, we shall need to make sure that when we come to rebuild a livestock industry for the future, we should not attempt simply to recreate the past. We shall need to look at how we can put in place a system that will underpin the industry decades into the future, rather than try to put the clock back to the past.

893
However, I have to say to noble Lord that, today, the tone of some contributions has changed dramatically. Kind though it is, I do not wish to be exempted from the rest of the Government or from my department. Frankly, I do not think that noble Lords can get away with that. The early debates held on this exercise were full of praise. I think that they were full of praise because they were working on the same assumptions of the kind of outbreak with which we were dealing as we in MAFF were working on.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that I did not challenge her to produce paperwork when she recounted an incident concerning a vet who had been turned back. I said to the noble Baroness that, if she would give me the details, I would follow it up in order to try to get the case of that vet sorted out. Indeed, in thinking now about some of the things that have been "alleged", of the fundamental mistakes that have been made, the fundamental incompetence, the fundamental mismanagement that I have heard today, I went back to read some of the comments that noble Lords who have spoken today made on 21st February, 26th February and on 8th March. People do have 20/20 hindsight. I do not have 20/20 foresight, but when, on 8th March, the noble Baroness rose to her feet to reiterate her support, not for me, but for MAFF—my department—because she was anxious that someone had suggested that she had not been sufficiently fulsome in her praise, I was the one who said to her that I would rather no one judged this episode until it was over.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I quite accept what she has said, but obviously circumstances move on—something that I think the noble Baroness will acknowledge. It is right that noble Lords should come back to the House with further suggestions. Indeed, in fairness, I had paid her the compliment before her noble friend suggested that I had not done so.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is absolutely true, but what the noble Baroness had not said then was what an incompetent shambles was MAFF and how fundamentally flawed was the policy.
I am in complete agreement with the noble Baroness that circumstances change and that we have to re-evaluate policies. I am not trying to say, here and now, that every single decision has been absolutely right. Indeed, I was fascinated to hear the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, say that he had had in mind a policy two weeks ago, but that he has now thought about it and has decided that it was wrong. But then he went on to say that MAFF should be open-minded and made the most excoriating suggestions about how close-minded, how ridiculous, how impossible was the department to consider vaccination. However, widely different views have been expressed in your Lordships' House this
894
afternoon and, indeed—on his own admission—were held by the noble Earl himself until a few days ago. All of us can learn as we go along.
I am terribly conscious that on the last occasion I took 50 minutes to wind up the debate. I shall not be forgiven for doing that on this occasion, so I shall try to make progress and answer some of the points that have been made.
As I said, we have to learn as we go along. We have to recognise a point which has now been accepted internationally; namely, that we are dealing with a very different outbreak. This outbreak perhaps may be unprecedented. When I said previously that there is no blueprint, I did not mean that there is no blueprint for dealing with disease. Perhaps I could now hit on the head the idea that a 24-hour slaughter policy was suddenly imposed because someone, somewhere, thought that that would be a good idea. It was the policy of the Chief Veterinary Officer from day one of the disease outbreak. When I referred to the fact that there is no blueprint for the disease, I meant that no epidemiologist could say what would be the pattern of the outbreak. It was not possible to tell why Cumbria would be affected to such a devastating extent.
No one could foretell that for two sets of reasons: the first concerned the amount of animal movements. I do not refer to movements to slaughter because abattoirs were a long way away. That may be an argument as regards abattoirs, but it is not an argument as regards disease control. The movements continued to such a large extent, criss-crossing the country. The second reason was that the movement controls that we all hoped would allow the disease to express itself in a fortnight—that was the incubation period—did not happen because this strain of the virus is such a silent disease in sheep. What we are often encountering is a diagnosis in cattle which have been infected by sheep which were not the first animals in the flock to have the disease, but rather are the second or the third wave of animals to have been infected. So we are coping with an enormous disease problem, the scope of whose difficulty would challenge any ministry of agriculture in any country anywhere in the world.
In the course of this outbreak, we have done a great deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the movement to slaughter scheme and the role played in that by local authorities. I do not think that it was mentioned by any other noble Lord who has spoken in this debate. It is supplying something in the order of 75 per cent of the beef market, 90 of the pork market and around 35 of the lamb market, because at this time of year most lamb is exported. It is working extremely effectively. It is not mentioned simply because it is working extremely effectively. It is one of the schemes that has been set up totally ab initio since the outbreak began, along with the schemes covering the slaughter and disposal of animals.
Policies have changed as the disease has emerged and developed. They do have to be specific. I understand of course that individuals have had to

895
endure the enormous uncertainty of not knowing their situation. We need to work even harder to explain to people and to raise with them the issues remarked on by noble Lords. We need to tell them how we shall get out of this: how, in Leicestershire, we are shrinking the areas that are infected; and how we are managing to lift restrictions.
In Northern Ireland I understand that the SVC decision has been successful; namely, to secure the regionalisation policy that means that only the area immediately around the affected premises will be restricted. However, I say to noble Lords who are interested in whether Northern Ireland, northern Scotland—the area was mentioned in the debate—or East Anglia are possible candidates for regionalisation, that they should bear that in mind when they make a blanket condemnation of any import policy within the EU from any country that has foot and mouth disease anywhere. That is because regionalisation served us well with swine fever; it may again serve us well in the future with FMD.
I wish to speak about some of the, if you like, rural myths. I hope that it will be reassuring to noble Lords to know that the Cumbria office helpline does not close at 5.30; it is open 24 hours a day. I have the number if anyone needs it. Someone in my private office phoned the helpline five minutes ago and, yes, it is answering—and it is well past 5.30.
As to the staff from hunt kennels, when this issue was first raised with me by a Member of your Lordships' House I investigated it. I found no evidence whatever that there was any policy not to accept such staff. We are grateful for the help of kennel slaughtermen, of which 10 are employed at the Great Orton site and three other teams are in Cumbria. I can assure the House that they are not there only because of the army; these teams are working directly to MAFF vets as well. So a worry, yes, but not one that was necessary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said that we had not engaged with the farmers. I can tell him that I have personally chaired the stakeholders' meetings from the first Friday of the outbreak to the next week and all the way through. At these meetings there have been representatives from the NFU, from Scotland, from Wales, from the National Beef Association, from the National Sheep Association, from all the specialist veterinary associations as well as from the BVA, from the abattoirs, from the processing industry and from the retailers. We have never excluded the farming industry from these discussions.
I recognise—this is an important area—that the welfare disposal scheme is causing great concern. I fear that in future I may have more than a little responsibility for it, so it is causing me a lot of concern as well. On the issue of disposal, a noble Lord suggested that some of the slaughterhouses were not yet working at capacity. That is absolutely true. The
896
reason for that is that we have learnt that it is enormously important to have the final disposal route available. You cannot stack up produce from abattoirs if it has not got an eventual disposal route. We now have, I think it is, 34 approved landfill sites.
I hope that any noble Lord who has the opportunity will offer reassurance to the councils involved with these sites that the material going to them is from healthy animals. One speaker—I apologise, I do not remember the name—raised an instance of a long journey. Yes, indeed, it was a long journey; it was a licensed journey, after veterinary inspection, of non-infected animals. It is the only way we can make the scheme work.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, and other noble Lords, asked me about the rates to be paid under the welfare disposal scheme. They are not full 100 per cent compensation rates because it is not a compensation scheme for the state stepping in and slaughtering your animals under animal health laws, as we do for foot and mouth disease control. It is based on the swine fever pig welfare disposal scheme. It is a voluntary scheme. It is completely up to owners whether they use this scheme, whether they try a movement scheme or whether they manage animals alone. Owners are paid at something like 90 per cent of pre-FMD market value, which the NFU certainly judges to be generous and has recommended to its members. Given that something like 1,250,000 animals have been enrolled in the scheme, it is seen as a generous one.
Our desperate need now is to make sure that the scheme is functioning efficiently. The tonnage is going up already and I hope to see improvements on that. It is an area where we need to improve, and we intend to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, kindly gave me notice that he would be asking about the issue of advance payment. It is one of the matters that I should like to take away. It may well fit in with issues on which we are having discussions with the banking sector, which are ongoing. The banks have given extensions of credit and have shown that they wish to be helpful, not only to farming but to other rural businesses. It may be appropriate to discuss this matter with the banking sector, given that this is a cash flow issue rather than anything else. It may be that the banks can help and I shall certainly undertake to pursue that issue.
I wish to say something about vaccination. Engagingly, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wanted three straight yes or no answers. I am sorry, even with notice, he cannot have three straight yes or no answers because the questions were a tad simplistic, if I may put it that way.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it was worth a try.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, vaccination is not a yes or no decision. There are different policy options

897
for introducing vaccination. There are the policy options which relate to disease control—dampening down, ring fencing and so on—which have a logic of immediate or very quick slaughter afterwards; and there are issues relating to reducing the number of animals to be slaughtered, the protection of rare breeds and the protection of dairy herds, a matter raised today. A decision about vaccination on any one of those issues then leads to equally complex decisions and judgments having to be made about the effect on the overall livestock industry, or the regional livestock industry in which vaccination was introduced.
There is scientific debate about those issues and about carrier status, and the possibility that carrier status would extend the epidemic's tail, although it might not change dramatically the number of cases. If you extend the epidemic's tail, you then extend the time before you regain disease-free status, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
We have to look at the issue. We have taken precautionary action, planning in advance, to make sure that we have stocks available and that European cover is available should we wish to vaccinate cattle. Again, of course, we would need to debate what to do with the different species. We would need to have vaccine available for cattle in Cumbria and Devon. Beyond that, we would need to look at the European bank of vaccine—where the vaccine is not double strength; it is single strength and would need two administrations—were we to go for wider vaccination. I am sorry; I cannot give absolute clarity on this because no decision has yet been made. A debate is raging about whether and in what form vaccination could be usefully applied to this situation. We have to get it right because it will have enormous long-term consequences.
Several noble Lords talked about the human consequences, as did the right reverend Prelate, of this terrible, terrible event that has blighted so many areas of our country and so much of the rural economy. We are trying to help, through the Department of Social Security; through the Department for Employment and Education, which sees jobseekers; through the Inland Revenue, which administers working families' tax credit; and through the voluntary organisations, where there have been so many generous contributions—which are being matched by the Government—to make charitable funds available.
I am extremely anxious that we give people coherent advice. A great deal of advice, numbers and help has been given in the farming sector and in a large number of other areas. MAFF has given over its pavilion at the Stoneleigh ground to the Rural Stress Network to open up helplines there. I hope that in communication with farmers we can make clear the avenues of help, just as through those avenues we are making sure that people receive the right advice and we are doing as much as we can to help them.
898
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of illegal meat imports, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monro. I referred earlier to the issue of regionalisation. European Community legislation permits the import of meat from certain countries where FMD is endemic, but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. I understand that that is exactly in line with the recommendations of the Northumberland committee. As I said earlier, it may be of great interest to farmers and colleagues in Northern Ireland in the future.
The countries involved are: Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay. All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK border inspection points, where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to document and identity checks; at least 20 per cent of consignments undergo physical checks, and these are carried out by an official veterinary surgeon.
Of course, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no illegality anywhere. We have already recognised the need to look not only at the regulatory framework but at enforcement provisions for the future.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I gave a list of some 26 countries where foot and mouth is endemic. I do not think that all the checks deal with that point in terms of the country of origin.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness. My information is that it is in countries where the disease is endemic rather than where it is acute that it is possible to regionalise. In regard to some matters, the meat itself is subject to regulation and must be deboned. That followed from the recommendations of the Northumberland committee.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that she is giving careful thought to her reply. Given the movement of sheep and cattle in this country, if an animal is moved from an infected area—let us say, for example, Kwa-Zulu Natal in South Africa—to a non-infected area, so that the imports then come to this country from a non-infected area, what guarantee is there that we are not taking in food from an infected area?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly enough in terms of the certification and regulation that is necessary. I accept what the noble Baroness says, and that that may be possible. However, in my own view the problem is not in areas where the provisions apply, where there is certification and the certification is wrong. The issue arises where there is no certification and where there are illegal, smuggled imports which no one has tried to

899
do anything about. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness about the exact framework.
I ought to say a word or two about the broader rural economy and some of the issues that have been raised about the measures that we have taken. There is a need to ensure, again, that we give the right message in regard to footpaths, tourist attractions and leisure facilities; namely, that we are not cavalier in relation to disease control, but that we are not so risk-averse that we go beyond veterinary advice and thus create more desolation than is already occurring. It is incumbent on county councils to look very carefully at whether what they did initially on a precautionary principle and beyond veterinary advice is absolutely essential now. No one is asking them to be cavalier, but it is important that they recognise the damage that is being caused in many areas of the rural economy. Most of the major organisations, such as the National Trust, have taken great care to adopt a responsible attitude in reopening, but the aim has been to reopen wherever it is possible in order to provide a service and to ensure that we do not cause more difficulty than there is already. I hope that, equally, noble Lords will work to ensure that that is carried through.
As regards the change in the legislation, I fear that I probably signed both statutory instruments, so I shall look very carefully to see whether it is all my fault and shall try to put right anything that gives rise to difficulty.
The Rural Task Force met again today. It has announced a number of possibilities—for example, the funding of hardship rate relief, the extension of mandatory rate relief to more categories of rural business, and the sympathetic approach of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to deferred tax payments and national insurance contributions. The task force is considering a number of other measures. I believe that the approach, certainly in the worst affected regions, of looking very broadly at what package could he available is one that we shall want to take forward.
In conclusion, just as I said when everyone thought that we were doing wonderfully, that I should prefer people to reserve judgment until the end of what we are facing, so now, when some voices have turned and some are more interested in blanket criticism, perhaps they too should reserve judgment. Some form of inquiry will be necessary. We need to learn as we go along. But I suggest that to carry out a full-scale inquiry day by day when we need to be diverting all our resources to combating this dreadful disease is not a wise thing to do.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a valuable debate. I hope that it has been valuable for the Government too. I cannot be expected to refer to every speaker, but I am especially grateful to those noble
900
Lords who spoke kindly about my opening remarks. Perhaps I may say a special thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who was extremely kind from the Liberal Front Bench.
We heard some remarkable and moving speeches from a number of noble Lords who have been personally involved in the tragedy besetting the nation. The noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Cavendish and Lord Monro, have either had animals destroyed or have animals awaiting slaughter. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, is also in that situation, and possibly other noble Lords.
I am glad that so many speakers referred to the non-agricultural aspects of the current tragedy. I explained that I wanted to refer purely to the agricultural issues of foot and mouth disease, but we have heard valuable comments from a number of noble Lords. Perhaps I may make special reference to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Byford, who also referred to issues which are vitally important at this time.
On a lighter note, perhaps I may pick out a remarkable speech by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. Anyone reading it tomorrow will not realise what we all realise; namely, that he made the entire speech without a note. It was a remarkable performance. One has heard of mythical characters who could deliver a Budget speech without a note. Had my noble friend organised his career differently, he too might have been in that situation.
The Minister spoke helpfully and in detail about the problem of vaccination. She summed it all up when she said that there would be enormous long-term consequences of moving in that direction. I hope that the Government will think very carefully before they embark on that.
Two Members of the House criticised me for playing party politics. I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. All I can say is that if they think what I said was a case of party politics they should take a walk down the road to hear what party politics really are.
The truth is—let none of us forget it—that we come here to criticise when criticism is justified. On 26th February I commended the Government for taking prompt action with regard to livestock movements. I commended their slaughter policy. However, I reserve the right to do what I come here for, which is to criticise when I think that that is necessary. I assure the Government that I would have said exactly the same, probably in even stronger terms, if my party were in government. I remind them that if Parliament had not criticised incompetence at the beginning of World War II we might never have had leaders such as Churchill and Montgomery.

901
I turn to the Minister's comments. She said that she was concerned that people had praised her but had criticised her department and the Government. When she reads my remarks at the beginning of the debate she will see that I made no personal criticism of her. However, she will note that I said absolutely nothing to exempt her from my general criticism of the Government as a whole. I believe that that was the right approach to take. The noble Baroness gives the impression that she comes here to learn and to try to benefit from our comments. For that I thank her. I hope that the debate has brought to the Government's attention what so many people outside the House are saying. Let us be frank, our intention was to put a bomb under the Government to get more and quicker action. I hope that the Government—
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I suppose I should say that I am grateful that he was not nice about me when everyone else was.
902
However, I found the condescending tone of his final remarks insulting when he said that the Government have heard comments today and now I shall know what the problems are.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I say straight away that I do not believe that my noble friend intended to cause offence. I believe that I said that I hoped the debate would add more power to the noble Baroness's elbow. Although she does not like the words that my noble friend used, I believe that he intended to convey exactly the same sentiment.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I conclude by saying that nothing I said was intended to be insulting to the Minister. If I did say anything insulting, I am very sorry. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Agriculture: Terrorist Threat
  Agriculture: Terrorist Threat
  Brain Tissue Transplant Treatment for Parkinson's Disease
  Brain Tissue Transplant Treatment for Parkinson's Disease
  Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
  Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
  Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists: Ministerial Meeting
  Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists: Ministerial Meeting
  Nigerian State Funds: Requests to Freeze
  Nigerian State Funds: Requests to Freeze
  European Union Common Policies and Departmental Responsibilities
  European Union Common Policies and Departmental Responsibilities
  Israeli Blockades in West Bank and Gaza
  Israeli Blockades in West Bank and Gaza
  European Security and Defence Policy: NATO Access
  European Security and Defence Policy: NATO Access
  European Human Rights Convention, Protocol 7: Ratification
  European Human Rights Convention, Protocol 7: Ratification
  Diplomatic Passports
  Diplomatic Passports
  Telecommunications Sector: Third Generation Problems
  Telecommunications Sector: Third Generation Problems
  Partners in Innovation: Research Funding
  Partners in Innovation: Research Funding
  Social Housing Provision in Small Settlements
  Social Housing Provision in Small Settlements
  Tourist Attraction Admissions and Sales: VAT
  Tourist Attraction Admissions and Sales: VAT
  Special Educational Needs Children: Support Funding
  Special Educational Needs Children: Support Funding