Sitting of 5 April 2001

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 26 April.

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

    British Horticulture
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the future of British horticulture.[155678]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government attach great importance to the future of our horticulture industry. We assist the sector through a programme of strategic research and development, costing about £10.8 million in the current year. In addition, new schemes launched under the England rural development programme will provide opportunities for the horticulture industry to improve its competitiveness.
    Mr. Brady: Does the Minister agree that, at a time of crisis in the rural economy, the 30 per cent. of agricultural employment provided by horticulture is more important than ever? Does she also agree that the proposed increase in fees by the Pesticides Safety Directorate from £470 to £1,285 for specific off-label approval will be a damaging additional burden for horticulture, and will cause the sort of research and development expenditure to which she referred to be scaled back?
    Ms Quin: We are looking at that issue. I am certainly keen to ensure that the horticulture industry does not bear increased burdens at such a difficult time for agriculture generally. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the increased potential for horticulture in this country. Although much of the fruit, for example, that is imported could not be grown here, we could grow many of the vegetables that at present we import. There is therefore
    484
    considerable potential, and the Government are working actively with the industry to identify a range of opportunities for expansion.
    Mr. John Grogan: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Yorkshire's horticultural growers who, with support from all around the country, have created and funded the Stockbridge technology centre? This week, the centre took over the management of the world-famous horticultural research facility at Stockbridge house in my constituency, only months after the facility was earmarked for closure—much to the consternation of the industry—by Horticultural Research International.
    Ms Quin: I certainly pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what he has done to secure both activity at the Stockbridge site and the work being done there by the organisation to which he referred. I know that he has had a number of meetings with MAFF Ministers to ensure a good use of the Stockbridge site and also to ensure that some of the work being done in his constituency complements other work being done to assist the horticulture industry generally throughout the country.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Given that many growers are heavily dependent on direct sales from their holdings, as I have been in the past, what assessment has the Ministry made of the indirect effects of the foot and mouth epidemic in inhibiting people from travelling to horticultural or mixed holdings to make direct purchases?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter. Obviously, we do not want to encourage any movements that might compromise the fight against foot and mouth disease, but at the same time we do not want to restrict unnecessarily bona fide movements that would help the horticulture industry. The best way to resolve the matter is through continuing discussions with the Horticultural Trades Association and other representatives of the industry.

    Food Manufacturing (Foot and Mouth)
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with representatives of the food manufacturing sector on the effect of the foot and mouth outbreak on their industry. [155679]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): This week I have met representatives of the Food and Drink Federation, the Institute of Grocery Distribution, the British Retail Consortium, the Provision Trade Federation, the British Meat Manufacturers Association, Dairy Crest, Express Dairies, Nestle, Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Morrison's. This is in addition to the weekly meetings with food chain representatives and others which my right hon. Friends the Ministers of State chair.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that many more people are employed in the food manufacturing industry than in

    485
    farming? Will he assure the House that serious attention is being given to food manufacturers, especially those who rely on export markets?
    Mr. Brown: As well as meeting senior representatives of the industry, I have, as I said, put in place weekly meetings for the trade to discuss issues arising out of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It is true that many people are employed in downstream activities such as food processing and distribution, and retailing, and that their numbers are greater than the total number of people employed in agriculture. However, the food industry is an integrated whole, and I never lose the opportunity to emphasise to everyone that it is a great British industry and that we all have a vested interest in the well-being of the different parts of the chain.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Minister agree that consistency of advice is important, especially in respect of dairy products? Yesterday, at the seminar that the right hon. Gentleman kindly organised, a question was asked about whether cattle should be put out to pasture. The advice given was that there was no problem, provided that they were kept at least 100 m away from sheep. However, on the 8 o'clock BBC News this morning, it was announced that the right hon. Gentleman would be telling the House that the Government would be discouraging farmers from putting cattle out to pasture. What has happened in the past 18 hours to change the advice that was given yesterday?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should not look for an inconsistency where none exists. It is perfectly true that if cattle are put out to graze on their own, without any other animals being present, their vulnerability is greatly reduced. However, the presence of sheep that might carry the infectivity poses an enormous danger to dairy animals. That is why, working very closely with the National Farmers Union, we are trying to keep the dairy animals housed for as long as we can so that the culling policy, especially relating to fat sheep in Cumbria, has a chance to take the fullest possible effect.

    Foot and Mouth
    Ms Julia Drown: When he forecasts that the incidence of foot and mouth outbreaks will start to decline. [155680]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On the basis of independent scientific advice, the Government's chief scientific adviser has concluded that the Government's slaughter and containment policy is beginning to bear down on the disease. Nevertheless, this is a very serious outbreak, which is likely to have a long tail. The critical interventions in controlling the disease are to cull all animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease on infected holdings within 24 hours, and to cull all susceptible animals on farms sharing a boundary with the infected premises within 48 hours. We will be better placed to predict the future development of the disease in a week's time.
    Ms Drown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's optimism and recognise the huge difficulties in predicting
    486
    the decline of such an infectious disease. That good news is also good news for the tourism industry. One issue that farmers in my constituency are raising with me relates to the welcome opening of more footpaths. They are concerned that footpaths that are close to livestock may be reopened. Can my right hon. Friend assure them that proper guidance will be sent to councils and to farmers via the very good network of NFU contacts so that people can be assured that all precautions will be taken?
    May I also pass on another concern from local farmers? Transporter vehicles have to travel long distances to disinfection points. Can my right hon. Friend assure farmers that that policy will be examined to see whether the distances can be reduced?
    Mr. Brown: We are examining whether we can open further disinfection points. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the key advice that people should stay away from farmed livestock, but that is all the advice. There is no reason why people cannot enjoy footpaths. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will issue comprehensive advice on precisely that point.
    Mr. Tom King: As the key factor in ensuring that this terrible crisis abates is to effect the rapid slaughter and disposal of animals, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report produced in 1968 by Western Command on the military impact and the efforts of the troops? It shows how they structured the recommendation to have a civilian commander with responsibility for veterinary matters and relations with Ministries and a military commander with total responsibility for dealing with the administration logistics of the slaughter and disposal of animals. Has that structure been recommended to the Minister? It was recommended after 1968. Can it be introduced now in view of the critical need to take a more urgent approach to the disposal of animals?
    Mr. Brown: The structure that the right hon. Gentleman describes sounds to me very much like what is actually happening in Cumbria, Devon and other hotspots. If there is some difference in nuance that he wishes to raise or pursue, I am happy to discuss it with him, but there is no division between the approach taken by military and civilian personnel. They are all working very well together to a common shared objective.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Despite what my right hon. Friend has said, the perception in Bishop Auckland, where there are 17 confirmed cases, is that the situation is still getting worse. Will he please guarantee that he can get sufficient resources to the command in the north-east of England to ensure that the cull of animals on adjoining farms can be accomplished within 48 hours?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I visited the north-east headquarters of the disease control operation last Sunday. In response to representations from my right hon. Friend and others, I have ensured that extra resources—especially extra veterinary resources—are allocated to the north-east of England to give his constituents the reassurance to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Minister confirm what he believes are the grounds for the

    487
    guarded optimism that we heard yesterday? Does he share entirely the views of the chief scientific adviser? If so, and if we are seeing the beginning of the end, will he give his attention to movement licences in unaffected areas? Many farmers are substantially affected, even though they are not in affected areas.
    Mr. Brown: I keep the issue of movement licences carefully under review, but I am not yet in a position to announce any liberalisation of the regime. I hope that what the chief scientist says is right, but I am not able to confirm it yet. As I said, we need a further seven days to get a better take on the pattern of this serious disease outbreak. In the meantime, we should not relax our guard; there is no room for complacency.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, I listen carefully to the news that is given to the House. However, I wonder whether the use of landfill sites for carcases may spread the disease in areas where we had not previously seen it, because animals graze right up to such sites and there is great danger. Would we not be better off rendering the animals?
    Mr. Brown: Farmed livestock are, of course, kept away from landfill sites. The risk of spreading the disease through the movement of vehicles to landfill sites is minimal and, of course, the risk of the disease re-emerging from such sites is even lower than very, very minimal.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the defining moment for whether the incidence is in decline or on the increase will be on or about 23 April? He referred to cattle coming out of winter shelter and going to spring pastures. However, it is not good enough for the Ministry to say that the animals should be kept indoors, when farmers have no money to feed the beasts. In many instances, there are also animal welfare considerations. Yesterday, the Minister's scientific experts told us that there must be a distance of 100 m or one field separating cattle and sheep. If MAFF fails to control the disease on that date—23 April—does the Minister accept that its incidence could rise to 400 cases per day?
    Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept the forecast to which the hon. Lady treats the House. The policies we are pursuing are right. It is right for the Government to work with the NFU leadership to keep valuable dairy stock housed for as long as possible so that the risk of their exposure to the disease is minimised. She is right to say that the animals will have to be turned out, but is wrong to say that the date on which they are turned out will be the day when the policy is tested. If we do not pursue vigorously the policy on which we are embarked, we all have a duty to consider the alternatives. None of them—including the use of vaccination for dairy animals—is easy, and they are being resisted by the industry, especially by the farmers who own the animals.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend refer to Brigadier Birtwhistle the thanks and appreciation of all Members of the House for his sterling work? For many of us, the brigadier has restored the belief that people in public service do a first-class job.
    488
    Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether it is scientifically possible to vaccinate cattle without a delayed cull?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to the second question is obviously yes. Indeed, among the strategies that the Government are considering but have not adopted, and that are not being announced today, is the possibility that valuable dairy animals could be vaccinated and live on—the vaccine would wear off over the next 12 months. That strategy is possible, but there is a downside too, including issues of trade and consumer acceptance.
    On the work of Brigadier Birtwhistle and his men, I have seen at first hand the excellent work that the armed services are doing in Carlisle, working alongside civilian personnel to a common objective. My congratulations go out to everyone—both civilian and military personnel, who are working so hard throughout the country to get this terrible disease under control and to eliminate it.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly welcome the latest, more encouraging projections about the future scale of the outbreak and very much hope that those will be confirmed by events in the next few weeks. Will the Minister confirm that, as his Ministry's figures show that 277,000 animals were awaiting slaughter on Tuesday of last week and that only 229,000 were slaughtered in the following seven days, at least 48,000 infected or dangerous contact animals remained unslaughtered for at least a week? As that shows that the Government are still a long way from meeting the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target described two weeks ago by the chief scientific adviser as essential if foot and mouth disease is to be brought under control, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to continue to publish daily figures for the number of animals awaiting slaughter, the number being slaughtered and the number of carcases awaiting disposal?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's approach is mistaken. The crucial intervention is between report and slaughter. We must get those figures down to under 24 hours. That is the advice from the epidemiologists and it was what we have set out to do. The hon. Gentleman is looking at animals that have been ordered for slaughter in infected premises and on neighbouring premises. The slaughter of animals on neighbouring premises is necessary, but it is an intervention of less significance—although important—than culling animals on infected premises. In fact, vets as a matter of routine are first slaughtering animals on infected premises that show signs of infection, before slaughtering the cohorts. To enable the House to understand the full range, for every three cases that are reported—that is what triggers the veterinary inspection—two turn out to be false alarms and only one is a real outbreak.
    Mr. Yeo: Given what the Minister has said, will he therefore undertake to publish a separate figure within the total of animals awaiting slaughter for those that are infected and need to be slaughtered within the 24-hour target and those that are simply on neighbouring farms, for which I understand the target is 48 hours? The figures that I quoted show that even that lesser target is a long way from being met. Will he also confirm that as of today, about 1.5 million animals are awaiting slaughter under the welfare disposal scheme and that many of them are

    489
    experiencing distressing animal welfare problems? What steps is he taking to clear that massive backlog and will he also publish regular figures so that progress can be publicly measured?
    Mr. Brown: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's first question. The second was a perfectly proper question about the animal welfare scheme, which has proved to be very popular. If the industry were working completely normally, it would take five weeks of normal consumption to clear the animals that are being proposed for the scheme. This is a new scheme and it has been set up from a standing start. We have started to take animals away on a priority basis. The purpose of the scheme is to deal with genuine welfare issues. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a backlog and we are trying to clear it, but I cannot promise the House that that will be easy given the popularity of the scheme.
    Mr. Phil Sawford: In Northamptonshire, as a result of one confirmed case, movements are restricted in a huge swath of my constituency, which leads to animal welfare and financial problems, and other farmers are falling foul of the BSE rules under the over-30-months scheme. Will my right hon. Friend look at the area covered by those restrictions and the time scale for them? Will he also look at the discrepancy between the 75 per cent. paid under the 30-months rule and the 100 per cent. paid under the foot and mouth rules, because some farmers are losing out through no fault of their own?
    Mr. Brown: A number of anomalies are created by the movement restrictions, and they are unavoidable if we are to bear down on the disease. I will do what I can to help, and I promise my hon. Friend that I will look at the issues that he raises. However, I cannot move away from the very firmly imposed movement restrictions if we are to have any chance of eliminating the disease and returning quickly to normal trade.

    Agricultural Imports
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on agricultural imports from other EU countries. [155681]
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on agricultural imports into the United Kingdom. [155684]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The total value of imports of food, feed and drink last year was £17 billion, £10.9 billion of which was imported from the European Union. Meat imported from other EU member states must be produced in conformance with EU laws on meat hygiene and on controlling the risks of BSE. Imports of meat from non-EU countries are allowed only if the country and the meat plant involved have been approved by the EU Commission as producing to standards at least equivalent to those applicable in the EU.
    My right hon. Friend is in contact with Commissioner Byrne and has requested that an examination of the legislation and enforcement measures relating to the controls on imports of animal products into the EU takes
    490
    place at the earliest opportunity. I shall reinforce that message with colleagues in the EU Agriculture Council this weekend.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. Given the flow of imports that do not satisfy the meat hygiene or animal welfare standards that we rightly demand of our own produce, will the Minister now impose a precautionary ban on German and Dutch beef, protect the public from the illegal inclusion of animal products in consignments of non-animal products, and introduce honesty-in-labelling legislation so that consumers can know the country of origin and method of production of food and make a free and informed choice of what to buy?
    Ms Quin: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, he will know that, under this Government, new beef labelling rules have been agreed that are much stricter than was the case before. He will also know that the Food Standards Agency is examining 100 per cent. of the meat imported from Germany and the Netherlands to ensure that there is no risk of specified risk material coming into this country. As a result of the FSA's investigations, there has already been a suspension of activities in abattoirs in Germany.
    Mr. Syms: Will the Minister set out in detail what action Ministers took when Mr. Clive Lawrance alerted them in May last year that hundreds of tonnes of illegally imported meat was coming through Heathrow airport?
    Ms Quin: Mr. Lawrance rightly drew attention to a number of instances where illegal products had been discovered. His comments and observations were passed on Customs and Excise. Furthermore, Mr. Lawrance wrote to me in March this year. I acknowledged his letter straight away because he mentioned foot and mouth disease, and I have since responded to him in full and have also asked him to contribute to the work that we are doing on the review of import controls.
    The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned honesty in labelling. This Government have made greater progress on labelling than anything that was done under the previous Government. That is certainly true of meat labelling. On previous occasions, I have recommended the work of the Ministry's verification officer in changing misleading labels in supermarkets.
    Charlotte Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the devastation that has been caused, there is a very good case for a total ban on the personal imports of meat and meat products into the European Union? Recently, a group of students from my constituency went to France, and they were not even allowed to take a packet of crisps into that country. Does she further agree that we need to take urgent action? I urge her to press this issue with her European colleagues next week.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right; this issue needs to be considered urgently and it needs to be considered at the European level. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Minister made clear, we are also leading a

    491
    cross-departmental review on the ways in which we can ensure that our national controls, as well as the European Union controls, are as effective as possible.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many countries outside the European Union—for example, Botswana—produce meat to the highest possible standards? Does she also accept that many developing countries want trade not aid? Will she take this opportunity to move away from the protectionism of the common agricultural policy and encourage the purchase of more meat from third-world countries which seek the opportunity to sell to the EU?
    Ms Quin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. Some countries have high standards and, in this debate, we must avoid jingoism and false patriotism. On the other hand, we must be vigilant to ensure that sub-standard meat does not enter the country.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Minister's officials confirmed last year that the outbreak of classical swine fever was caused by illegally imported meat. It would now seem that lightning has struck twice, with the preliminary finding that imported meat was the probable source of the current foot and mouth disease outbreak. How many times does disaster have to strike the agricultural industry before the Government do something about illegal meat imports?
    Ms Quin: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who knows better, should present such an over-simplified version of events. He knows well that we suspect that imported meat was the cause of the outbreak of classical swine fever, but we do not have absolute proof. Quite rightly, investigations are taking place into the current outbreak. Although it is certain that some kind of imported product must have been the origin of it, another attached problem is that that product may have been inadequately treated in pigswill. That is why the Government are proposing in their consultation to end the use of pigswill.
    The Government have responded to recommendations about improving and eliminating the undesirable feeding of certain mammalian products to animals in a way that the hon. Gentleman's Government did not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made that point very clear in last week's debate.

    Livestock Movements
    Mr. Mark Todd: What representations he has received on the process for awarding livestock movement licences. [155682]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I have received a great many representations about livestock movement licences, and there are essentially four schemes.
    The movement of animals direct to slaughter has been permitted since 3 March. Local and occupational movement licences allowing short-distance movements were introduced on 9 March, and longer-distance movement licences were introduced from 17 March. For circumstances in which these schemes will not alleviate
    492
    animal welfare problems, we introduced the welfare disposal scheme on 22 March. This provides free collection, transport, slaughter and disposal of animals as well as a payment to the farmer for the animals taken.
    We are continuing to develop the controls and administrative arrangements for these schemes in the light of experience. However, I must emphasise that disease control has to be the top priority.
    Mr. Todd: I share my right hon. Friend's commitment to tight movement controls, but do not experience of the risks and the epidemiology advice available lead us to think that we may be able to refine those movement controls? For example, could we not reconsider the 21-day standstill period, which is obligatory for local movements, and consider speeding up the process of awarding occupational licences, which can take three to four days? The sloth of that process is directly linked to the vast call on the welfare scheme that has been introduced. If we can obtain quicker and more precise movements, we may avoid some of the welfare problems that we currently face.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: where limited trade can take place under licence, it should be the preferred route for the industry—for the farmer and the meat trade in general. As the pattern of the disease is regionalised and reducing, I envisage that it will be possible to relax the control measures in parts of the country that are disease free. Our priority must be to keep those areas disease free as we bear down on outbreaks. I know that it is hard, but strict controls and a strict licensing regime are necessary to eliminate the disease.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given the backlog in issuing licences and the problems that farmers face in moving stock, especially from one clean area to another, may I suggest that it was hugely crass and insensitive of the Ministry to send out the integrated administration and control system forms now to be returned fully completed by 15 May? I urge the Minister to reconsider that cut-off date and, if necessary, to make representations to those in Brussels who are in charge of the scheme so that the farming community is not further penalised or subject to additional anxieties.
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is necessary for people to complete a claim. We are able to invoke the force majeure rules in those circumstances when people, for perfectly understandable reasons, are not able to fulfil the scheme's conditions, but they must claim and explain why the force majeure rules should apply to their case. That is a reasonable way to proceed. Officials have behaved sensibly and the Commission has gone out of its way to help to us in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the granting of movement licences in unaffected areas? I understand the difficulties, but a farmer who owns two farms that are not close enough to enable him to benefit from short-distance licences might have to move cattle on animal welfare grounds.
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I am happy in general to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. However, it is not a matter for me in Wales because it is a devolved responsibility.
    Mr. James Paice: Given the overstretch of the Ministry's vets, would it not be sensible to allow local private vets to authorise movements within uninfected areas, so that welfare problems are resolved? On the number of animals awaiting movement and slaughter, if we accept the Minister's comments about contiguous animals being slightly less important than the infected herd for slaughter and if the 24-hour and 48-hour targets are being met, should we not expect the number of animals awaiting slaughter to fall? Is that number falling, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, or is it still rising, as figures on the Ministry's website demonstrate?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes the same mistake as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) by confusing two different issues. The crucial intervention is the 24 hours between report and slaughter. Animals that show signs of infectivity are most likely to spread the disease, which is why they are culled out before cohorts on infected premises. If it is possible to cull out the neighbouring premises with the same teams—which it is, in some circumstances—that is done. If it is not, there is a delay as further slaughter teams are sent for. We should not understate the size of the problem. Some holdings have 10,000 animals on them. Although a holding might appear as one farm, the work can be substantial. Given the scale of the work, there is a necessary gap between the start and the finish of slaughtering.

    Foot and Mouth (Vaccinations)
    Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will review his policy on vaccinations of livestock against foot and mouth disease. [155683]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Vaccination has always been an option that we have kept under constant review. The European Union Standing Veterinary Committee agreed that emergency vaccination of cattle in Cumbria and Devon could be carried out if the Government concluded that it was necessary as an additional disease-control measure.
    Mr. Flynn: The disappointing thing about yesterday's seminar was its failure to provide us with a rational cost-benefit analysis of the present policies compared with the alternatives of partial or full vaccination. We know that the costs are immense—possibly £9 billion—to protect an industry that will be worth nothing for the next three years, but was worth about a third of a billion pounds at best. The cost in human and animal suffering is enormous. When the outbreak is over, in a year or two, foot and mouth is likely to return spontaneously, by accident or, most likely, by the deliberate act of a person or organisation. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will then take fully into account what
    494
    happened in Albania, Macedonia, Algeria and Taiwan, where vaccination was used extensively? We should look to MAFF to represent all rural industries, and not just—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Minister.
    Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have considered the experience of countries that have used vaccination extensively, and there were problems in every case. Vaccination is an option, and we have contingency plans, as is right and proper. Sometimes it is right also to challenge conventional thinking about the way to deal with issues, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not afraid to do so.
    Vaccines are not a panacea and there are problems with them. There is resistance to the idea within farming, and there is no consensus of approach on their use, which would be important if they were to be used. There are also problems with trade, identification and potential consumer resistance. Nevertheless, we need to consider these matters carefully and keep them under review.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that ring vaccination around the worst-affected areas would have a dramatic advantage over the present policy at this time? Has he seen the excellent work done by the Elm Farm research centre, the admirable letter in The Times this morning from Fiona Reynolds, the director-general of the National Trust, or the work of Toby and Emma Tennant in the borders, all of whom urge that that step be taken? Of course it is a bold step, but this is a moment for bold action.
    Mr. Morley: Yes, I have seen the views of Fiona Reynolds and others, and I take them very seriously. The use of ring vaccination has been considered, including as a method of damping down the disease. At present, the view is that it would not give us the same benefits as the present policy of 24–48 hours. As the House has heard, there are indications that the policy is beginning to bite into the outbreak, anti we must take that into account. We are keeping our options open and we are trying to evaluate the best way of using vaccines and non-vaccine approaches.
    Mr. David Lammy: Has there been any consideration of the use of vaccination in urban farms and zoos? My hon. Friend will appreciate that they are in special circumstances, and they are experiencing great difficulties at this time.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are special circumstances in zoos with exotic animals and rare breeds. The EU Standing Veterinary Committee discussed the matter yesterday. Its report was submitted to the Ministry today and we will consider its recommendations to see whether there is a role for vaccination in those circumstances.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that the constant public musings about whether or not to vaccinate, which were started by the Prime Minister and have continued this morning, merely add confusion, and that the job of Government is to make up their mind? While they are not doing so, it is inevitable that people will increasingly ask that vaccination be used.

    495
    If it is not to be used, the Minister simply has to make a proper calculation of the costs of the present policy of eradication by slaughter and stack that against the value of the trade that we are trying to save and the costs of the public's refusal to buy products that might flow from vaccination. Unless all those facts are in the public domain instead of general musings, the Minister will not settle the controversy and he will not win the argument.
    Mr. Morley: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic suggestion that we should rule something out and that we should not have a debate on whether there is a role for vaccination. I stress that vaccination is not a panacea: there are severe downsides to its use. It is not the majority view in the veterinary or scientific world, although there is, of course, a minority view to the contrary. It is right and proper that we hold the option open, but it is most important that we control and eradicate the disease. The current policy appears to be bearing down on it, so it has to be the priority; vaccination is currently of secondary importance.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—

  Serious Cases (Crown Court)
  Shona McIsaac: What impact the Narey reforms have had on the speeding up of the outcome of serious cases before the Crown court. [155708]
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The new Narey indictable-only procedures that came into force on 15 January this year abolished committal proceedings for the most serious cases. Instead, following a single, brief magistrates court appearance, defendants charged with offences such as murder, rape and serious firearms or drug offences appear before a Crown court judge slightly more than a week after charge. Early indications suggest that there has been a tremendous change of culture, with some defendants in such cases wishing to indicate a guilty plea at the first Crown court hearing. In that way, even in cases such as armed robbery, sentences are being passed only nine days after charge.
  Shona McIsaac: How will the Narey reforms specifically benefit the victims of serious crime or the families who are left behind? All too often, victims perceive that it takes far too long for cases to come to court; they feel neglected and that they do not know what is happening. The justice system is designed to deal with crooks and criminals, and victims often feel that crooks and criminals have more rights than they do.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Obviously, the early completion of serious cases removes the upset caused to victims, witnesses and relatives and so reduces the stress and anxiety that they might otherwise feel. There is also an advantage for defendants: if they plead early, there are quite considerable sentencing discounts. The Labour Government inherited a system under which it took about 12 weeks to get such cases
  496
  committed to the Crown court, and another four weeks—often more—for an indication of plea to be given, whereas these cases are now being resolved extremely quickly.
  Mr. John Greenway: I welcome the Minister's answer. I recall the changes that took place in 1967, when I was a serving police officer; they, too, speeded up the system. The line that he is taking is the right one. Further to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), does he agree that that accelerated process now provides a golden opportunity to ensure that every victim has a Crown Prosecution Service official as a specific contact point in the handling of their case?
  The Solicitor-General: That is very much our policy. As I have said on previous occasions, we are introducing a system whereby the CPS will be the first point of contact with victims. We have just received an evaluation report on the pilots and we are considering it, but later this year we will roll out exactly the sort of system that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

  Crown Prosecution Service (Human Rights Act)
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the Crown Prosecution Service. [155709]
  The Solicitor-General: The representations that I have received suggest that Crown prosecutors and the courts have matched up very well to the demand that has so far been placed on them by the Human Rights Act. There has not been the chaos in the criminal justice system that some predicted. Crown prosecutors were well trained and prepared for the coming into force of the Act, and they are applying the principles of the convention with increasing confidence both during the prosecution review process and when meeting challenges based on convention rights in court—
  Mr. Eric Forth: How depressing.
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman might think that, but I think it extremely important that prosecutors were trained and ready to deal with the introduction of the Act.
  As a lawyer, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will have been able to note in the law reports the mostly unsuccessful outcomes of defendants' arguments based on convention nights.
  Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that very full reply. Can he provide an estimate of the cost of rearranging courts so that prisoners and accused people are no longer seen in handcuffs? Is he in a position today to make a commitment to repay to the CPS the full cost of the introduction of the Human Rights Act?
  The Solicitor-General: A certain amount of money was set aside to deal with the implementation of the Human Rights Act, but most of it has not been required. Cases have not been delayed. Magistrates certainly have

  497
  to give reasons now, but that is a good thing. In some cases, defence lawyers are making arguments in the Crown court, but most of those are quickly dismissed. On the hon. Lady's specific point, there has to be a programme of modernising courts around the country, and that is now occurring
  Mr. David Kidney: Should not we all be satisfied that Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have continued to present their cases to court responsibly? Has that not largely contributed to the absence of horror stories in the media, which no doubt some editors had hoped to publish?
  The Solicitor-General: That is certainly the case. In a range of cases, whether involving reverse onus provisions, privilege against self-incrimination or evidence from entrapment situations, defence challenges have not been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Although some Opposition Members have the mentality that the sky will fall in, that has not been the case.
  Mr. John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the pernicious consequences of plea bargaining include innocent people pleading guilty to offences that they did not commit and the guilty getting off far too lightly? Does he agree that plea bargaining is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Human Rights Act? What instructions on plea bargaining does he give the Crown Prosecution Service?
  The Solicitor-General: I do not accept the premise that a breach of the Human Rights Act is involved. Clear rules are set out in various Court of Appeal decisions and guidance that the Attorney-General issued late last year on plea bargaining. Plea bargaining behind doors cannot occur, but in some cases defendants who want to plead guilty will give an indication to that effect. Provided that the matter is dealt with transparently and openly, those pleas will be accepted.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Solicitor-General list for the House three practical benefits for the CPS that have flowed directly from the implementation of the Human Rights Act?
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Justice is one.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. As a result of the Human Rights Act, the CPS is much more conscious of the rights of defendants. As I said, in most cases the challenges have not proved to be successful. I do have concerns; some courts are looking at cases of delay, regarding them as a breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which, frankly, I do not accept. As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, we are trying to change the culture so that all public institutions will be much more conscious of the rights of ordinary people. I should have thought that Opposition Members would support that aim.

  CPS (Computer Systems)
  Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on his plans to equip the Crown Prosecution Service with new computer systems. [155710]
  The Solicitor-General: I am pleased to report that the programme to equip the CPS with modern computer systems began national roll-out to the 42 areas in November of last year, with completion planned for November 2001. The "connect 42" project provides basic information technology tools and enables staff to be connected to each other and the police. The project was successful in gaining accreditation to the Government secure intranet, which will enable the CPS to join up electronically with its criminal justice system partners and the wider government community.
  Implementation in the first 13 areas has taken place and more than 1,500 staff have been trained in new IT techniques. CPS London will start to receive "connect 42" this month and, as I said, the roll-out will be complete by the end of the year.
  Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. I am pleased that the CPS will soon be online in my area of south-east London. Can he give an assurance that the system will be compatible with systems for the police and the magistracy, given the importance of the three elements operating together? Can he say how such compatibility will be assured?
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that he has taken a great interest in the matter and has visited the CPS on various occasions. He wrote a detailed report for me as a result of those visits. The project was designed not to go wrong. We have started giving Crown prosecutors basic IT skills and they have access to databases, file information and so on. After this year, the next step will be to make sure that there is a link-up with other criminal justice system agencies, such as the police and the courts. That is already possible in some areas, but not in all. We are working with the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that we have an interconnected criminal justice system.
  Mr. John Bercow: For that purpose, when were the market-testing criteria last reviewed, and what is the intended length of the contract terms?
  The Solicitor-General: As I said, the current contract for "connect 42" will be completed by the end of this year. Tenders are being considered for the next stage of the project. So far, we have received indications from some half a dozen of the leading commercial suppliers of IT equipment. There is great interest in the project. It will succeed.

  Metropolitan Police (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: How many prosecutions against Metropolitan police officers have

  499
  been abandoned in the past four years (a) prior to opening in court and (b) during court proceedings; and how many prospective prosecutions are outstanding. [155711]
  The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records on proceedings against police officers, or other particular categories of defendants. The information is held on individual case files, and could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost. In general terms, the CPS did not proceed in approximately 12 per cent. of cases last year. Where cases proceeded to a hearing, convictions were recorded in 98.3 per cent. of hearings in magistrates courts and 88.3 per cent. in the Crown court, involving about 1 million defendants.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Following the jailing last Tuesday of police informer Geoffrey Brennan, who had accused my constituent, Detective Inspector John Redgrave—suspended since February 1997—of corruption, and given that those accusations were subsequently withdrawn and no evidence was produced against my constituent by Chief Superintendent John Coles of the Complaints Investigation Bureau, is it not time that my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary revisited the matter, which I raised in Westminster Hall on 31 October, in connection with the abysmal treatment of my constituent? The court case against Brennan reinforced what I said then about the scam by MI5 and the anti-terrorist squad's involvement in illicit or illegal gun running with Roger Crooks, who also supplied the helicopter to Sandline and is holed up in Mama Yoko hotel, Freetown? Will my hon. and learned Friend revisit the case, as there is a significant smell about
  500
  the whole thing, yet my constituent, uncharged and uncomplained about in any practical sense, is still languishing on suspension at enormous public cost?
  The Solicitor-General: I know that my hon. Friend raised the matter on another occasion. His constituent made complaints about the conduct of the police in the investigation, and I know that the police have conducted further investigations and that the papers are now with the CPS. They are being dealt with in a different CPS area, to remove any suggestion of a conflict of interest. As the investigation is continuing, I cannot say anything further about the specifics. I will keep my hon. Friend informed about the details.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: One recognises that Caesar's wife must be above reproach, but is it not fair to police officers that they be treated in the same way as others? An investigation going on for such a long time does nothing for morale in any police service, and the media constantly denigrate police officers, who do an outstanding job under tremendous pressures.
  The Solicitor-General: I certainly agree that the police do an outstanding job. However, when allegations are made about serious wrongdoing by the police, such as attempts to pervert the course of justice, they must be investigated. That is done under the auspices of the Police Complaints Authority.
  Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service has a role in considering these matters. As I intimated to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the mechanics are such that matters are taken outside an area or dealt with by more senior prosecutors, so that there can be no allegations that they have been got at in any way.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 10 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the week after the Easter recess is as follows:
MONDAY 23 APRIL—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 24 APRIL—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 26 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 27 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 30 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 25 April, there will be a debate relating to community immigration policy in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 25 April, there will be a debate relating to the European Aviation Safety Agency in European Standing Committee A.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 2 May, there will be a debate relating to a common asylum procedure and uniform status for persons granted asylum in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Relevant documents:
Wednesday 25 April 2001:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 14329/00, European Aviation Safety Agency. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-xi and HC 28-v (2000–01).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document:11529/00, Community immigration policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Reports: HC 28-iii (2000–01).]
502
Relevant documents:
Wednesday 2 May 2001:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 13119/00, Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons granted asylum. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-viii (2000–01).]
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks after the Easter recess will he as follows:
THURSDAY 26 APRIL—Debate on tackling the illegal trade in African "conflict diamonds".
THURSDAY 3 MAY—Debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on border controls.
I anticipate announcing further debates after the Easter recess.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information.
Will the right hon. Lady ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to come to the House to make a statement about the school achievement awards? Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been notified this week by the Minister for School Standards that something has gone seriously wrong in the Government's school achievement awards. The Department states:
"The error arose from a miscalculation of Key Stage 2 test average point scores".
As a result, schools that have already been notified that they have won a school achievement award have not actually won it, and must now be written to, to be told that a mistake has been made. Schools that were omitted from the original list are now also to be written to.
We understand that, in order to ensure that there are no tears, the schools will be given the money anyway, whether or not they achieved an award. It is a bit like the Caucus race in "Alice in Wonderland", as everyone gets a prize, except that the schools that genuinely did not achieve an award at all will receive no money, while others that did not achieve an award, but in different circumstances, will get the money. The Secretary of State should make a statement to the House, as it seems that one or two Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment should do a little bit of detention for getting it all so wrong.
I want also to make a helpful suggestion to the right hon. Lady, who will know that, in last week's business questions, she said in response to a question about the deferment of county council elections:
"Certainly, it has been the Government's view for some time that to suspend the county council elections would give a strong and negative signal."—[Official Report, 29 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 1109.]
That remark was made just four days before the Prime Minister changed his mind. Of course, we all saw her holding to that line on television at the weekend and, indeed, on Monday morning. It occurred to me that, when most business meetings reconvene, the agenda usually contains an item called "matters arising". It also occurred to me that I might support such a suggestion from the Modernisation Committee. If, at the end of the business statement, we were able to deal with clear, although not deliberate, inaccuracies arising from the previous week's

503
questions, it might help us to conduct our business in a more business-like manner. I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider that positive suggestion.
Now that we know that Parliament will not be dissolved for a while, the Government should find Government time for a debate on foot and mouth. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has answered questions today, but it was disappointing that he did not make a statement this week. I hope that the right hon. Lady will ensure that, as soon we return from the Easter recess, the Government allow a day's debate on foot and mouth. The Opposition have done that on two occasions.
Will the right hon. Lady explain the procedure on submitting written questions to the Table Office in the possible run-up to a general election? I gave the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) notice that I would use him as an example, but I do not believe that he is the only one. Already, £4,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent on no fewer than 31 questions about other people's constituencies. There are rules about that matter, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will be sufficiently anxious to find time for the House to consider the way in which some hon. Members are suddenly, for some unexpected reason, interesting themselves in other people's business.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady asked first about the school achievement awards. I am sure that she is disappointed that the money is staying with the schools, thus depriving the Opposition of a chance to criticise. She asked about the error and whether Ministers would apologise. I have not asked, but I doubt whether Ministers personally made those calculations. However, it appears that a little more progress on the numeracy hour is needed somewhere in the Department for Education and Employment.
I finally worked out the hon. Lady's question about deferring the local elections. I know that respected national newspapers have a corrections column, but I do not plan a similar feature for this Session. As she knows, I have repeatedly reminded Opposition Members, often to their displeasure, of the strong representations that we have received from the tourism industry, and stressed that they had to be taken into account along with representations from the agriculture sector. In that sense, we said nothing different from what was said previously.
The hon. Lady requested a debate on foot and mouth and expressed regret that there was no statement this week. We have had Agriculture questions today, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture arranged a presentation to keep hon. Members informed. They are therefore up to date.
The hon. Lady asked about the submission of written questions. I am delighted that she asked me that because it gives me an opportunity to use some information that I have been carrying around for weeks. I am sure that she is keen for her constituents to know that, in her constituency, more than 21,000 pensioners received the winter fuel allowance, more than 8,000 pensioners got the free television licence and more than 2,500 families receive the working families tax credit. I am sure that she is eager for them to know the extent to which they benefit from a Labour Government. I sympathise with Opposition Members about the problems that that causes for them.
504
Day after day, they claim that nothing has changed for the better and that policies are a complete failure, whereas unfortunate figures reveal the opposite.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for statements to be made to the House from every appropriate Department as soon as possible—preferably before the election—setting out in detail what the Labour Government have done for every official Opposition Member and for every Member representing other minority parties on the Opposition Benches? I feel from the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that they do not want us to know.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is unfortunate for Opposition Members that the facts contradict so many of their arguments. It is especially unfortunate because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the policies being proposed by the Opposition mean that if they were elected to government, many of the gains would speedily be removed from their constituents. Their position is understandable. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's request. I am not sure whether I can readily arrange for all the information to be made available, but I suppose that it is possible that it may get into the public domain somehow or other.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, at the end of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions a few minutes ago, many Members on both sides of the House had not had their questions answered? May I ask the right hon. Lady to consider carefully what can be done next week to bring more information before the House? On a previous occasion, the Minister of Agriculture took questions after the normal time, which was extremely useful to the House. It was a great deal more useful than debates, because we were able to extract much information from him.
May I suggest to the Leader of the House that, as we have been reminded on a number of occasions now that it is the Prime Minister who has taken charge of the programme of eradicating foot and mouth, the right hon. Gentleman should make a statement and answer questions next week before the Easter recess? As the Minister of Agriculture said a few minutes ago, the next seven days are critical. It is clearly unsatisfactory for us to adjourn for the Easter recess, for quite a substantial time, at the moment when the Minister says that the situation is critical.
We have heard nothing for several days from a number of interdepartmental groups, including the rural taskforce, which apparently is not to meet again, and the Cabinet Committee on rural affairs. Confused messages are being given to the country from different Departments and an evident lack of resources is being made available to deal with the problem. For example, we are apparently recruiting vets from overseas while retired vets over 65 years of age are being turned away, even though they have volunteered their services. Is the Prime Minister prepared to face the questions that we wish to put to him on behalf of our constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: It is my understanding that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a presentation

505
yesterday and it is now 12.42 pm, so the argument that a further statement and update is needed today is not especially well founded, particularly as we have had Agriculture questions. I understand that many Members wished to ask questions and not everyone was able to get in. I sympathise with those who were not. However, that is understandable in the circumstances that now obtain. I do not think that my right hon. Friend can be accused in any way of neglecting his duty to the House or failing to make available to the House as much information as he possibly can.
The notion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should make all the statements on foot and mouth is not well founded. My right hon. Friend is in charge of the entire Government, and remains so. [Interruption.] Indeed, Opposition Members try to blame him for everything; that is perfectly true. The Government are doing as much as anyone could reasonably expect to keep the House informed. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I announced last week when the House would adjourn for the recess, without any comment.
Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend will be aware from the answer that she gave me earlier this week, which unfortunately I was unable to follow up because of traffic on the M4, that, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady put her question.
Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the Adjournment debate starts about 49 minutes later than it did during the first Session of this Parliament. Does that not reflect on the failure of the process of modernisation? Is it not time for us to stop bringing the House into disrepute by spending more time discussing the processes of how we consider legislation than we spend discussing the content of legislation? Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter in terms of when she timetables programming motions in the Session after the recess?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend was kind enough to send me a note of apology for her absence. That was entirely unnecessary: I knew that some problem must have arisen, because she is most assiduous in her attendance in the Chamber. I recall the figures that her question elicited, and it is certainly the case that a fairly sustained attempt has been made to detain the House later in the evenings than is necessary, by discussion not of the substance of Government business but of the processes. I accept that there is much room for criticism of those proceedings. However, my hon. Friend will find that a short but succinct and relevant new report by the Modernisation Committee has recently been published.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the right hon. Lady find time to allow the House to debate and come to decisions on parliamentary pay, pensions and allowances in the first week after the Easter recess? She will know that a tradition has grown up that
506
those matters are reviewed in substance in the lifetime of each Parliament. That has not happened in this Parliament, and many of us think that it should have.
Mrs. Beckett: May I say to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Gentleman."] I beg his pardon. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not sure whether that practice has been around long enough to be called a tradition? I am aware that there is often a recognition that the conduct of business suggests that a review should be carried out during the Parliament. Such a review has recently been carried out, but it was quite recent and I cannot undertake to stage such a debate in the first week back. Obviously, it remains a matter for discussion.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is there a possibility of a debate on foreign affairs, now that we have a little more time? I ask this for two reasons. The first is the developing situation in the Balkans, where British forces are engaged and where there are clearly dangers that could lead to a wider conflict. The second is the developing crisis between the United States and China, which President Bush might use to justify the nuclear missile defence system, in which we would be involved through the use of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. It would be sensible if the House could have a statement by the Foreign Secretary and an opportunity to contribute our own views.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the important points that my right hon. Friend makes, but I cannot undertake to find time in the very near future for a foreign affairs debate. I recognise the genuine concerns that he raises, but a general foreign affairs debate that ranges across the world is more difficult to find time for on the Floor of the House. However, more specific debates on foreign affairs issues are more readily available in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The right hon. Lady might have noticed, in answers to questions put down by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and me, that the previous Conservative Government put £4.8 billion into mining regions, in a mixture of money including redundancy payments and economic regeneration. The right hon. Lady's own Government have poured just short of half a billion pounds into economic regeneration in coal-mining areas. Will she consider an urgent debate into the circumstances of the west country, which would give the House an opportunity to consider matters such as the plea to the Prime Minister by the people of a region pushed to the brink by foot and mouth, issued recently by a local newspaper? The debate would make the point that if a Conservative Government were capable of pouring in billions of pounds for economic regeneration, even though there were no votes in it, it is absolutely right that this Government should consider economic aid to those affected regions that is vastly greater than anything that they have previously contemplated.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of his constituents, and his concern for the difficulties that they face. He will know that the Government have made it plain that they take those considerations extremely seriously. Obviously, we shall have to look, over time, at the impact of the crisis

507
that is currently under way. That impact will be varied, and the Government are doing everything that they can to encourage people to recognise that the countryside is not closed, and to ensure that the impact on industries such as tourism is minimised. He and other right hon. and hon. Members will be very conscious that, no matter how generous the sort of loan schemes that people urge on the Government are, it cannot make up for the severe fall-off in business which it is most important to revive.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend referred a few moments ago to the most recent report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, which was published at the end of last week. It is a brief but important report. Will she try to ensure that the House has the opportunity to discuss that report before the end of this Parliament so that, in the next Parliament, we can take advantage of its recommendations to ensure that the House works in a better way and scrutinises legislation as the report proposes?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to him for the serious, thorough and non-partisan way in which he, like most members of the Modernisation Committee, have always conducted themselves in these discussions. He asks me to arrange a discussion on the report. I cannot necessarily undertake to do that at the present time, but I appreciate the steps that he has taken to draw it to the attention of the House because I think that it will inform our further discussions and debates.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would knock heads together to get an improvement in the running of our railway system. Judging from the announcement of Virgin Trains that it is to raise fares on the west coast main line service by 10 per cent. following last month's cut in fares by 50 per cent., we seem to be getting into a surreal situation. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House so that we might probe him on what has gone wrong between Railtrack and Virgin Trains, as it is the innocent passengers using the west coast main line service who have to bear this outrageous increase in rail fares?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to come specially to the House to deal with this issue, although I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It is hard to see how that action will help to attract passengers back to the railway. However, he may have overlooked the fact that questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place on Tuesday 24 April.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the attention that the Government are giving the tourism industry in these difficult times. Nowhere is that more welcome than in the south-west. Will she consider having an early debate on tourism, so that we can draw attention to the can-do list of things which, in my constituency, where one in 10 people is employed in that industry, is far longer than the cannot-do list? Will she also urge right hon. and hon. Members to sign early-day motion 527?
508
[That this House calls on all honourable and Right honourable Members to visit Cornwall and Devon this Easter and to encourage their constituents to do the same, to demonstrate that the tourist industry is open for business.]
It is tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and myself, and urges people to visit the south-west during our rather generous Easter recess.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right about the need to encourage people to recognise how much of an opportunity to sample the delights of tourism in these islands is presently available. She is also right to ask for attention to be drawn to the opportunities that exist. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on tourism on the Floor of the House in the near future. However, she may well find that a debate in Westminster Hall is more easily obtained. Furthermore, she may recall that the BBC regional unit has made it plain that it makes extensive use of those debates. That could bring the matter to the attention of rather more people than a debate on the Floor of the House might do, as the chances of a parliamentary lobby covering such a debate are not terribly high.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement in the House, or at least to take part in a debate on answers to written questions? Last week, I asked the right hon. Gentleman two straightforward questions: what sum of money had been set aside by his Department to cover his legal expenses for bringing proceedings against Associated Newspapers and Tom Bower for the publication of extracts of his book; and when did he issue his High Court proceedings for libel? The Secretary of State responded in the Official Report, at column 106W, by referring me to the reply that he gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 2 April at column 7W. I looked at that column, and the answer had absolutely nothing to do with the questions that I had asked. I stress to the right hon. Lady that I have no professional interest in this case but, as a parliamentarian, I have an interest in the proper accountability of Ministers for the spending of public money.
Mrs. Beckett: I wondered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was looking for trade, and I am relieved by his assurance that he was not—although I am sure that he would perform excellently in that capacity. He is right to say that all hon. Members take an interest in accountability and the use of public money. However, as no public money has yet been expended, I do not think that his point is very strong.
Mr. Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend will know that about 20 million people will be hanging on tonight's news about who shot Phil Mitchell, but probably not many fewer people would be willing to do the same job on the Child Support Agency. I have never supported men who do not offer proper support to the children whom they produce, but it is important that the House have a debate on the extent to which we continue to fail miserably the women who get no support from their former partners. Moreover, good fathers are

509
pursued and persecuted because of cock-ups in the agency. Could the House have a statement or debate on the subject of why there is such an immovable backlog of cases to be examined by the independent case examiner, and about why the CSA appears to be unable to deal with the scale of damage inflicted by cock-ups in its internal operations?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that all hon. Members have constituents who have had difficulties in their dealings with the CSA. My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the great and indiscriminate distress and difficulty that is caused, often to both partners. I admit that I think that there has been some improvement in the agency's operation, and I am sure that its staff face a difficult task in dealing with such immensely complex issues.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but my hon. Friend might look to take advantage of the increased opportunities offered by Westminster Hall.
Mr. David Heath: We heard in Agriculture questions that the next seven days will be crucial when it comes to knowing whether there are any grounds for the guarded optimism that has been expressed about foot and mouth disease. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) noted, it is extraordinary that the House should rise next Tuesday without hearing a statement from the Prime Minister about the current situation. Do the Government intend to table Government amendments to the Finance Bill to put into action some of the pledges that have been made to support our rural industries? Finally, will there be an opportunity to have another look at the rural White Paper? Some of its measures would have been extremely helpful to rural industries, especially in the south-west, had they been implemented in this Session.
Mrs. Beckett: There is no case for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to come to the House, although it is certainly true that the House must continue to be informed, and I am confident that that will happen.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have announced the date of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and when progress will be made in Committee on the Floor of the House. It may be that the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to raise these matters then. I do not think that I should be required to suggest time for special debates when debating opportunities already exist.
Mr. David Winnick: The Opposition have already raised the matter of Virgin Trains raising fares by considerably more than inflation, and Railtrack is getting £1.5 billion in extra public money. In view of those facts, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of an early debate on the total failure of the Tory privatisation of the rail industry? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a possible remedy could be applied in the next Parliament—a remedy that is dear to the hearts of many Labour Members? She will know what I mean.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has long and assiduously argued his corner on this matter, as on other issues. He is right to identify the total failure of the policy
510
pursued by the previous Conservative Government, the consequences of which are now known and resented throughout the country. However, for the very reason that the failure is widely known and understood, as well as widely resented, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on issues that are already so well aired.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As you, Mr. Speaker, can readily confirm, a vast number of right hon. and hon. Members did not get called during this morning's very brief session with the Minister of Agriculture. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that we will have a statement next week? Will she also convey the news to the Prime Minister that there is a strong feeling throughout the House that, as he has taken personal command of the operation, we expect him to be answerable to the House? The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said sotto voce a few moments ago that the Prime Minister was out driving a JCB. That may or may not be the case, but we expect him to appear at the Dispatch Box to answer our questions and to tell us how he is co-ordinating the campaign.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that for once I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no strong demand across the House for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appear at the Dispatch Box; there is merely an attempt at mischief-making by Conservative Members on an issue that is genuinely of great importance and concern.
On the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I am as reluctant as any Leader of the House to give undertakings about statements, but I can assure him that I take his point seriously and I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: May we have an early debate on the impact on tourism of intransigent landlords who refuse to reopen their land to walkers? The McLeod estate on Skye refuses to undertake a risk assessment and is depriving walkers such as myself of access to the Cuillin ridge walk over the Easter break and threatening the livelihood of mountain guides such as Darren McAulay and others who are dependent on tourism and walking.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes very well and forcefully. I also note the strong plug that he gives for the work and activities of people who are doing an excellent job. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House although I recognise the seriousness of the matter. He, too, may like to seek an opportunity to raise it in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Peter Lilley: On the principle that the House should be most assiduous in debating matters which Ministers are most reluctant to debate, can time be set aside for a debate on the DTI report into Hollis Industries and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry' s responsibility for it? The right hon. Gentleman hides behind his claim that he did not receive the report, but refuses to say when he was informed of its contents; he hides behind the threat of legal action but

511
fails to issue any writ; and hides behind advice from officials, whereas it is he who is responsible for the advice that he takes. The last time I raised this issue, the Leader of the House uncharacteristically lost her cool. Will she now, in more characteristic terms, accept that there is a case for an urgent debate on these matters?
Mrs. Beckett: It is kind of the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was uncharacteristic, but I did not lose my cool. I was extremely shocked at what I thought was quite appalling and disgraceful behaviour on his part, as a former Secretary of State, when he attempted to accuse my right hon. Friend—he has just repeated that accusation—of hiding behind advice from officials when he must be perfectly well aware that had my right hon. Friend overruled that advice, especially as a newly appointed Minister in the Department, Opposition Members would probably have a great deal more to complain about.
Ms Margaret Moran: When considering debates on the serious issue of foot and mouth, would my right hon. Friend also consider an early debate on the somewhat strange interpretation of the Government's current regulations by some councils? I refer specifically to South Bedfordshire district council, which is refusing to collect refuse from properties in my constituency, seemingly on the basis that they have the word "farm" in their addresses. In particular, I understand that a fish farm has not had its refuse collected for several weeks nor has Tipple Hill farm, winch is not a farm, but a house which has several horses in its grounds. Does she agree that that is a dangerous and somewhat bizarre interpretation of the Government's regulations?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point, and makes it well. I sympathise with the concerns of her constituents; apart from anything else, they are no doubt concerned about the health hazard of uncollected waste. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor, but I suspect that my hon. Friend may find a sympathetic hearing for a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the requests that have been made from both sides of the House for a further debate on foot and mouth in Government time before the Dissolution of Parliament? Members from both sides of the House could then share opinions on the advantages or disadvantages of vaccination and share information as to how this terrible plague was imported to this country. We could discuss how to develop a strategy to prevent the virus from entering the country in future. We could consider certain inadequacies at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the number of vets available when the plague first broke out. We could also discuss how to protect the pedigree and pure-bred herds and flocks that are so important to the future of agriculture in this country. With the extra time now available, it should be possible to find time for a debate on the Adjournment so that the House can share its views on what is such a serious disaster for the countryside.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I recognise to the full his concern for his
512
constituents. I am not in a position at present to announce Government time for a debate, although I shall certainly bear it in mind. As a regular attender at business questions, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that no matter how much extra time becomes available, there are always infinitely more demands to fill it than can possibly be accommodated. However, of course, I am very mindful of the need to keep the House informed; the Government look for a variety of opportunities and ways to do that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that at business questions last week, I asked about correspondence that had been unanswered by Ministers because a general election was on the horizon. Although we have a little longer before that event, the problem remains. My right hon. Friend will not be aware that I submitted a question about correspondence affecting a Mr. Nofal, in my constituency. I asked for answers to letters of 13 November, 18 December, 13 February, 20 February and 21 February. The answer was ambiguous; it stated:
"I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible."
I did not know whether that meant a reply to the letters or to my parliamentary question about them. It turns out that it was a holding answer; I still await my reply.
Furthermore, I have been promised a meeting with a Minister from the Department of Health in connection with the matter. It is of tremendous importance that, before we get to a general election, the issue is resolved for my constituent; otherwise, I shall have to employ other methods to raise his case on the Floor.
Mrs. Beckett: I am very aware of how assiduously my hon. Friend works on behalf of his constituency. I understand his concern if questions have not yet been fully answered. He will be aware that questions to the Department of Health are scheduled for 10 April; that may give him an opportunity to raise the matter.
Although I sympathise with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, his question gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the officials in my own Department, who seem to have succeeded in answering within a short time scale almost 100 per cent. of the letters sent to us. That is a truly remarkable achievement.
Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that it is right that the House's consideration of the serious foot and mouth crisis has concentrated on rural areas and those most directly affected—the farmers and communities therein. However, I hope that she will agree that some foot and mouth related issues touch urban areas. She will be aware that, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made that very point to the Prime Minister.
For farms in areas designated as urban, such as those in my Cheadle constituency in the Greater Manchester conurbation, and for businesses that supply rural areas, and are based in places such as Cheadle, it is not clear whether they will qualify under the various welcome steps that the Government have taken to help companies in difficulty. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will be able to accede to the many requests that have been made for a debate in Government time, so that those matters at least can be explored.
Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, I am aware from correspondence from my

513
constituency that people in businesses that might not at first sight seem to be related to the foot and mouth crisis or to tourism have been affected by the change in the business environment. I am conscious that that is one of the matters that hon. Members wish to air. I cannot accede to his request at present, but I do take the issues very seriously.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Last July, there were celebrations for the Australian centenary in this place. On 9 May, it is the 100th anniversary of the state opening of the first Australian federal Parliament. Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Speaker and other House authorities whether there is some way that we could mark that occasion in the House—without any boondoggles, without anyone going there—perhaps by using new technology whereby we could pass a resolution of congratulation? We could use the occasion as a precedent. All too often such matters are left to the early-day motions of Back Benchers, when they merit a greater demonstration by the whole House. Could that matter be examined, as that is an important parliamentary occasion both for the Australians and for us, as well as for other jurisdictions that have flown the nest after seeing the example of Australian independence?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I must admit that I have not given great consideration to the opportunities that he suggests are available through the use of new technology. I am sure that all those who represent the House authorities have heard his suggestion and will consider it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has announced a debate on the Finance Bill after the recess. Will it be possible to have some clarification about the suggestion that VAT will be added to the cost of hearing aids in the near future? That would increase their cost. It might be a stealth tax, which will certainly punish people who require such aids.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure how easy it will be for the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter during the debate on the Finance Bill. That is, of course, a matter for the Chair. I cannot undertake to give him the assurance that he seeks that it will be possible, but I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Mike Gapes: May we have an early opportunity to consider the remarks quoted in today's Ilford Recorder by the long-standing Conservative councillor in Redbridge, Asaf Mirza? He says that he is
"no longer able to apologise"
for his party's stance on ethnic minorities. He went on to say that the Conservative party
"is narrow minded, lacking in new ideas and stuck in the past",
and that
"It is rigid and lacking in communication and they refuse to listen because they do not want to improve the situation.
In contrast Labour is a modern, progressive and broad party that has demonstrated its ability to govern fairly and effectively for all."
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly, it is interesting to hear what is being said
514
in the Ilford Recorder by his constituent. I fear, however, that—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not ask a question."] My hon. Friend asked that we should debate these issues. I fear, however, that as much of what he says is self-evidently true, there is little to debate.
Mr. John Hayes: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could make time for a debate on class sizes. She will know that in many parts of the country secondary school class sizes are at their highest level for 10 years. Indeed, in more than 40 local authorities, the position is worsening sharply or is certainly not improving. The problem is not limited to secondary schools. Upper-age primary schools are also suffering from larger class sizes and a greater proportion of nursery-age children are in classes of more than 30 than there were in 1997. We need to get to the bottom of this matter. Despite the hyperbole before the general election, for the vast majority of children, class sizes are rising rapidly due to the Government's incompetence.
Mrs. Beckett: That is absolute nonsense. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, secondary class sizes have been increasing gradually but steadily for about 10 years, but there is no doubt that the rate of the increase has slowed as a result of the investment that the Government are making. In fact, in many parts of the country—the vast majority—children in the early years of education are benefiting from much smaller classes as a result of the earlier investment made by the Government. However, there is a further reason why there is no necessity for me to make a special arrangement to discuss those matters: oral questions to the Department for Education and Employment will take place on 26 April.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of yesterday's Law Lords ruling, which stated that, under the current legislation, it is legal for the privatised electricity companies to raid pension fund surpluses to fund redundancies? Does she appreciate—I am sure that she will—that some 200,000 pensioners feel ripped-off because the privatised companies are allowed to do that?
I am sure that she will be aware of the excellent Myners report and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agreed to implement all of its recommendations. One states that the Law Commission should review the ownership of surpluses. Will she use her good offices to ensure that the review takes place as quickly as possible, because hundreds of thousands of pensioners want pension funds to be paid to the pensioners, who have paid in all their lives? They do not want large companies to be able to take pensions holidays and raid the funds for redundancies.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is clearly supported across the House. I understand that the implications of that case are as he describes, because I believe that the Treasury has expressed some support for the suggestion that the Law Commission should consider those issues. I would only caution my hon. Friend that sometimes those matters are much more complex than he might anticipate, and I am not clear how speedily that action could be taken. I fear

515
that I shall not undertake to hold a debate on the matter in the near future, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate not only on foot and mouth, but its impact on the tourism industry? So far we have heard statements from the Minister for the Environment and from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but we have not had the chance to debate that impact. We are now seeing the reality of some of the measures that those Ministers announced, with a great fanfare, especially that on business rates, which will cost Derbyshire Dales district council more than £300,000 to implement. It was alleged that the Government would write off the cost completely, but a large proportion of it will be required from the district council.
We need to hold a debate not only on foot and mouth, but on the very much wider implications of the outbreak, and perhaps an Environment Minister, or even a Tourism Minister, could make the winding-up speech.
Mrs. Beckett: I am conscious of the interest across the House in the wider implications of the problems that are being experienced, not only in agriculture but in other sectors. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, have repeatedly said that, of course, any assistance or support that the Government can give will pale into insignificance beside what is really needed—a return of customers to rural businesses. That has to be the chief focus, but I shall bear in mind his request.
Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend may be aware that last week, after a two-year investigation, the Office of Fair Trading imposed a fine of more than £3 million on Napp Pharmaceuticals. The OFT found not only that the company had engaged in anti-competitive business practices by excluding smaller companies from the market, but that, in doing so, it had manipulated prices in the national health service, so that it was giving hospitals a 90 per cent, discount for a drug, but charging 10 times that amount out in the community, which accounts for 80 per cent. of the NHS drugs budget.
The OFT found that that practice, involving that single drug, cost the NHS £2 million a year. Will my right hon. Friend arrange to hold a debate as soon as possible so that we can properly assess the overall cost to the NHS of that practice, which is widespread in the pharmaceutical industry. I estimate that it costs at least £50 million—money which is intended to be used in front-line health care, and not creamed off in excess profits by rapacious drug companies.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know that the report of the OFT will have been taken very seriously. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on this matter, but he may have an opportunity to raise the issue in Westminster Hall. I remind him, however, that it is oral questions to the Department of Health on 10 April and he may be able to raise the matter then.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In the absence—according to the right hon. Lady—of the Prime Minister being willing to come to the House or of a debate in
516
Government time, does she recognise that it is terribly important for all our constituents who are concerned about foot and mouth that we at least have the reassurance that the Minister of Agriculture will definitely be here to make a statement on Monday, before the Easter recess?
Will the right hon. Lady please let us know, or ensure that the Minister lets us know, what precise arrangements have been made for all Members to raise urgent and important issues about foot and mouth and the rural economy during the recess? The MPs' hotline, which has been repeatedly requested, has still not been set up. Surely, it should be well established with sufficient resources before we go into the recess; otherwise, we should be here to ensure that we can represent our constituents' interests.
Mrs. Beckett: As I said earlier, I take seriously the point that has been made. I am as reluctant as any Leader of the House to be absolutely categoric about the statements that might be made, but I have taken on board the hon. Gentleman's observations. I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and not least the point about the MPs' hotline. It was my understanding that arrangements had been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not work."] If hon. Members are telling me that the arrangements are not sufficiently satisfactory, I will also draw that point to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. David Chaytor: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that the attempt by the United States to abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty will have profound consequences for the foreign policy and the defence policy of this country? Although I accept that she has ruled out the possibility of a wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs in the near future, will she give further consideration to the possibility of a more specific debate on national missile defence?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to my hon. Friend is what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn): there is probably a better chance of securing a debate on such a more restricted subject in Westminster Hall than on the Floor of the House. However, I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that it is Ministry of Defence questions on the Monday after the recess.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to keep their questions as brief as possible.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for my voice. You told me not to shout the other day, and I cannot do that today.
Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body? She will know that, in a written answer, the Prime Minister promised:
"This will be a matter for decision by Parliament."—[Official Report, 16 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 753W.]
She will know that recommendation 8 of the report asks that the matter be dealt with before a general election. Will she therefore return to the spin doctors in No. 10 and

517
tell them that we need the debate before the general election, so that the Prime Minister does not break his promise and so that Parliament can organise its information technology systems and everything else that is recommended in the report well before the general election?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that this was matter for the House to decide on at some point. That remains the case, but I do not believe that he gave any undertakings as to precisely when that opportunity might be made available. I recognise the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman expresses and I know that he—along with other members of the Information Committee—has long campaigned for improvements in our information technology arrangements. I am mindful of the review board's recommendation but I am mindful, too, of the fact that, as ever, there are more requests for subjects to be debated than time to debate them.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is there any chance—or am I wasting my time—of having before the general election that required debate on the most recent report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? If we do not have such a debate, those who are in the next Parliament might well regret it.
Will my right hon. Friend also pencil in in her very fine mind the real necessity for a debate on the effects of foot and mouth on tourism? That is a real problem that will not go away. When Members return after the Easter recess, they will be talking about the problems in their constituencies.
Mrs. Beckett: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point, and I have taken on board his request for a debate on privileges. Although I cannot give him that undertaking, I am aware of the tremendous work that he and others have done on that Committee and of their desire for the issues to be aired in the House.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Leader of the House accept that wanting the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the handling of foot and mouth is not mischief-making—rather, it is us doing our job and the Government doing theirs? Foot and mouth has rightly been the lead item on television and radio and in newspapers for the past six weeks. I am in daily contact with farmers and there was an outbreak of foot and mouth in my constituency yesterday. Last Friday, I met 30 business people who are affected by the tourism blight associated with the disease.
In a role reversal, may I draw Westminster Hall to the right hon. Lady's attention? It is not being used on Monday. How about getting the Minister of Agriculture to go there to answer questions in a full debate on the handling of foot and mouth?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I would never suggest that it would be mischief-making to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to answer questions on that subject. Indeed, he just did that. I have taken on board the requests for additional information to be made available and the pressure that there is, naturally, for such issues
518
to be discussed. However, for Conservative Members to pretend that they think that the Prime Minister should come to the Chamber all the time to make such statements is mischief-making.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House induce the Deputy Prime Minister to face up to his responsibilities and explain why Mr. Derek Smith, managing director of London Transport Underground, whom he appointed only two years ago, is submitting his resignation? Is he resigning because he has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government's policy on the tube; because of the antics of the Mayor, who undermined the leadership of the tube by siding with the strikers; or because Mr. Kiley wants a judicial review? What is it? The travelling public of London deserve an explanation, and so do we.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot find time for a special debate. I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is extremely conscious of his responsibilities and exercises them with a great thoroughness and determination. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday when we return from the Easter recess.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Last June, the Secretary of State for Health approved a plan of the Surrey and Sussex health care NHS trust to concentrate acute services at the East Surrey hospital in my constituency, largely by moving services from the run-down Crawley hospital. On Tuesday last week, at a meeting with the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), which was attended by local press, the Secretary of State suspended the transfer of those services. Decisions now have to be made about clinical safety and the cost to the trust. It is £10 million in debt and, on the Government's figures, the suspension will cost an additional £600,000 a year. Can we have a debate on the politicisation of the health service because that disgraceful decision was made in the political interest of the Labour party? The people who are served by my health trust should be recompensed for the consequences of that outrageous decision.
Mrs. Beckett: I simply say that I do not see the scope or need for a special debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that oral questions to the Department of Health are on Tuesday 10 April.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am now getting a large number of inquiries from farmers about foot and mouth and from a huge range of businesses that are also affected by it. Let me give the right hon. Lady an example of the problem: the total aid offered by the statutory instrument on rate relief amounts to £22 million, but the cancellation of the Cheltenham festival cost Gloucestershire £40 million. May I join my 15 colleagues on both sides of the House in appealing to the right hon. Lady to find time for a debate on foot and mouth?
The Minister of Agriculture attended a briefing session yesterday. He stayed for 60 seconds and officials were not able to answer many of the questions put by colleagues. In all sincerity, three quarters of an hour for Agriculture questions this morning is not adequate. A large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House were not

519
able to ask their questions. My constituents expect their representative to question the Minister. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for time to be made available for the Minister to come to the House to make a statement or, even better, to attend a debate before we break for the Easter recess?
Mrs. Beckett: I have, I think, given every indication that I am very conscious of Members' wish to have further information before the House rises for the Easter recess. As to the other, general issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I am of course extremely conscious, as we all are, of the scale of the difficulties being experienced, including those outside agriculture. However, I repeat to him what I have said to other hon. Members, which is that the key is to try do everything that we can to revive business in those areas, because it will never be possible for any Government to make up all the losses.
Mr. Christopher Chope: We always have a debate on Welsh issues around St. David's day; why cannot we have a debate on English issues on St. George's day, 23 April? We would be able to discuss the crisis in the English countryside and today's MORI poll, which shows that 71 per cent. of people are in favour of having a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU and 52 per cent. say that they would vote to opt out of the EU, given the chance.
Mrs. Beckett: That is what they laid in 1975, but it did not turn out that way. As for the question whether we need time for a special debate to allow Members to raise English issues, about 80 per cent. of Members in the House represent English constituencies and, perfectly naturally, are raising English issues day in and day out.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House may not be aware that there were a further five cases of foot and mouth disease in my constituency yesterday. Will she join the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), in dissociating herself from the words of a Parliamentary Private Secretary last night? The hon. Gentleman in question said,
"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."—[Official Report, 4 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 432.]
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the quotation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Members throughout the House are conscious of the concern about the disease and the fact that it is affecting not only the rural economy and agriculture but other industries.
Mr. Graham Brady: Given that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment held a leaving party at his Department last week, at which he reportedly told officials that the time had come for him to move on, could he be brought to the House to share with Members the secret of whether a
520
reshuffle has already taken place without our being informed, or whether he is anticipating leaving office for some other reason?
Mrs. Beckett: We all read these things in the papers from time to time, and I advise the hon. Gentleman not to take them too seriously. If he wants to ask my right hon. Friend about that, he can do so at oral questions on 26 April.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady assist me in investigating the alarming length of time that Ministers are taking to respond to constituency cases? Constituents write to us and use us as a conduit to get a reply from Ministers. I have trawled through my mail and found that I have not received replies from the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security since December and January. That is not only a gross discourtesy to the House, but obviously sends the wrong message to constituents about whether Parliament is open for business.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Lady's concern and I will pass on her remarks to my right hon. Friends. I can only say that having for a relatively brief halcyon period shadowed the work of the Department of Health, I am extremely mindful of the vast amount of correspondence that any Health Secretary and, indeed, his shadow receive, and I am conscious that the Department has greater difficulties in that respect than most, not least because the issues raised are of such delicacy that the correspondence is horrendously hard to deal with.
Mr. John Bercow: May we please have a debate on the 99.6 per cent. of British companies which employ fewer than 100 people, account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate two fifths of national output? Given that the last such debate was held in Opposition time in March last year and that the Government's record has been consistently denounced by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Engineering Employers Federation, to name but a few, is it not essential that we have an urgent debate on the sea of regulation which is now deeper and more hazardous than any with which British companies have ever had to contend?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he weakened his argument by referring to unprecedented denunciation being voiced by all those bodies, most of which are highly supportive of much of the Government's programme—although, of course, they express concern about regulation, as they did under the Conservative Government.
I rather think that as we are to have a debate on regulation later today, there is no need to find time for a further debate. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the only debate on the subject having taken place in Opposition time, I recall that, in the last Parliament, there was a period of at least two years—possibly substantially more; it might even have been three or four years—in which there was no debate on health issues in Government time.

Points of Order
1.36 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether your calling the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) last in business questions reflects your decision to adopt the principle applied by the last three Speakers of the House of Commons, which is that when an Opposition Member who is a Front-Bench spokesman rises on the Back Benches, he is not given precedence but is called last in debate and last in questions? I have always subscribed to that principle and thought it right, because it required hon. Members to make up their minds about what they wanted to do in Parliament—whether they were on the Front Bench or the Back Bench.
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker should never have to reveal what is in his mind. However, let me tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that I worry about the Benches themselves. I am very fond of carpentry and feel that the way he jumps up and down might do a bit of damage to the Benches. I do not worry about damage to his joints—just about the Benches.
Mr. Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that, at Scotland Office questions on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a gratuitous, false and insulting attack on me. She associated my name with her own and those of others who had been employed by Robert Maxwell, whereas in fact I had no dealings with him while he was alive. Then she said that I
"could have done much to help the Maxwell pensioners",
but my
"heels we could not see for dust."—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 167.]
In fact, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I spent five years clearing up the mess that the right hon. Lady and her former employer left behind after he was found dead in the Atlantic and it was discovered that £400 million was missing from the pension funds of the Maxwell group. I set up the Maxwell Pensioners Trust, as a result of which every Maxwell pensioner and employee, including the right hon. Lady, now stands to receive his or her pension entitlement in full, despite the depredations of Robert Maxwell.
I appreciate that accusations minted by the Secretary of State for Scotland are scarcely legal tender and I am not worried about my own reputation. However, notable public servants such as Lord Cuckney, Jane Newall and others who ran the Maxwell Pensioners Trust brilliantly secured the return of the money and the protection of all those pensioners.
I have written to the Secretary of State and asked her to apologise or to repeat her comments outside the House. My question for you, Mr. Speaker, is what protection do we have in the event of such gratuitous insults, which bear on the honour of Members of Parliament and, more important, on the reputation of public servants outside the House?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks how he can rebut a case that has been made against him, but I
522
would say that he has been able to do so today under that point of order. I cannot become involved in disputes between Members. I was present at Scotland Office questions and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not out of order as far as the rules of the House are concerned. However, the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make his point, and his remarks about himself and others have been put on the record.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. With reference to that occasion, is it not undesirable and contrary to the practices of the House that a Minister or anyone else called to answer should make such a point, which was unrelated to the question that was being asked?
Mr. Speaker: I have absolutely nothing to add to what I have already said to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley).
Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that at business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House a question about the OECD report on education, which shows that, in many aspects of education, Britain is at the bottom of the league table of developed countries. The Leader of the House replied that my comments criticising the Government were inappropriate because the report
"was based on a survey … carried out in 1996".—[Official Report, 29 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 1113.]
On reacquainting myself with that OECD report via the Library, I found that its tables on pre-school education, adults involved with education, school access to the internet and levels of attainment in education all refer to 1998, not 1996. Given that inaccuracy, and knowing that you would not want an inaccuracy to remain on the record, if I provide you with information from the House that supports my point, Mr. Speaker, will you make arrangements for that inaccuracy to be corrected?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to written answers at column 186 in today's Hansard. The Minister for School Standards has given me a pursuant reply, in which she says that the tables that she had given me on school achievement awards "contained inaccuracies"; my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made that point earlier. However, in her reply the Minister does not say that, as a result of those inaccuracies, many of the schools and local education authorities with achievement awards that she lists are not entitled to those awards; we understand that some £2 million was wrongly awarded to local schools. Will you take action, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Minister issues a further pursuant reply to correct the information that she has given in today's Hansard?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for Ministers' replies. Those are matters for debate, which the hon. Gentleman can take up with the Minister concerned.

Business of the House
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That—

(1) at the sitting on Monday 9th April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;

(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 10th April——

(a) the provisions of the Order of 20th November 2000 relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of standing committees shall apply as if that day were a Thursday;

(b) there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall;

(c) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received and he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I briefly introduced the motion which, I anticipate, will ensure the orderly conduct of business, and is for the convenience of Members and House staff. If the motion is agreed, on Monday 9 April the House will not adjourn until any messages from the Lords have been received. On Tuesday 10 April, it will amend the House's sitting hours to a Thursday sitting which, I hope, will be for the convenience of Members. The motion also makes provision for the House not to adjourn until Royal Assent to any Acts agreed by both Houses has been reported by the Speaker.
There is nothing new or controversial about the motion. A quick search of the journals of the House will show that many similar motions were made in almost every Session of the last Parliament. If Royal Assent cannot be signified during the House's normal sitting hours, the motion provides that the sitting should be suspended until the appropriate time. I hope that the House will agree to the motion.
Question put and agreed to.

Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]
  New Clause 1

    REVIEW OF ORDERS
    '.—(1) Every order made under section 1 shall include a provision for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year after it has come into effect and for the order to cease to be in effect if there is a resolution to that effect by either House of Parliament within ninety days of that report being laid.

    (2) In reckoning the period of ninety days referred to in subsection (1) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.

    (3) The report described in subsection (1) above shall include a review of the effectiveness of the order and of each of the matters set out in section 6(2) above in comparison to the statements laid before Parliament when the order was first made.'.—[Mr. Lansley.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    1.44 pm
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to move the new clause, which I tabled with my hon. Friends. In Committee, we had an opportunity not afforded to us on Second Reading to debate some of the purposes for which the Bill will be used by the Government. We did not, in Committee, seek to revisit the question whether the Bill should be wholly deregulatory, or whether it should have the scope to amend regulations in a manner that would create new burdens. We are concerned to use the structure of the Bill to best effect to deliver the objectives on which we all agree—to improve the quality of regulation—and wherever possible, from the Opposition's point of view, to ensure a reduction in the burden of regulation.
    New clause 1 deals with the improvement of regulation and would ensure that in the long run it is put within a structure of regulation which helps to reduce the burden on citizens generally. I shall describe briefly how the clause would work and the benefit that it would bring. New clause 1 might be termed a sunset clause, but strictly speaking, it is no such thing. The purpose is not to disapply regulatory reform orders, but to provide that after a time—in the fifth year after a regulatory reform order has come into effect—a report should be made to the House about its effects. The new clause would give either House the opportunity to make a resolution disapplying the order.
    The reason why we do not propose a sunset clause, as one might wish to do in relation to burdensome legislation, is that we continue to hope that the power will be used mainly, if not exclusively, for deregulatory regulatory reform orders. If that is the case, a sunset clause would reintroduce burdens that would otherwise have gone.
    The new clause provides for review, expressly related to the original purposes for which a regulatory reform order was made. As the House knows, clause 6(2) provides for a substantial range of factors to be examined in relation to the proposal, including the burdens that will be affected and the extent to which those burdens will be reduced. The Bill requires Ministers to apply specific tests to legislation, to establish whether necessary protection is

    525
    retained, whether reasonable expectations continue to be met, whether a fair balance is struck between the public interest and the interests of persons affected, and whether, on balance, given the benefits that may flow from the order compared with the burdens that may be created or imposed, it is desirable for the order to be made.
    All those tests, and the savings and costs that would result from a regulatory reform order, are to be reported in the document to be laid before Parliament before an order is made.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is the purpose of new clause 1 to investigate the effect of legislation over the previous five-year period, because it is considered that the regulation might be wrong; or is it necessary, as I suspect, because although a regulation may not have a deleterious effect on business when it is introduced, it may begin to do so after a while, as a result of changed circumstances in the business community?
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is reasonably obvious that the first of the considerations to which he referred will apply. His point flows directly from the one I was making on the need to examine the impact of the new structure of regulation that will be delivered by the regulatory reform order process, and to compare it with what was intended or expected to flow from it. He was right to say that the structure of activity within industry can change. That is especially important with regard to the burden on business. The burdens that flow from any given structure of regulation can also change over time.
    As my hon. Friend asked about the purposes for which the new clause could be used, I should point out the reasoning that underlies the proposed requirement for an order to be reviewed in the fifth year after it has taken effect. It is not simply that sufficient time must be allowed for the impacts to be made and measured, although that is true, but that, of necessity, the provision would ensure that a report on the operation of the new regulatory structure would be presented to the Parliament subsequent to the one in which the order was made.
    The new clause does not represent an intention that the structure of regulations or legislative activity should be continually re-examined anew by every Parliament. It is important, however, that, without examining the whole structure of new primary legislation, we should be always looking at the structure of regulation and using the process of regulatory reform orders to try to deliver progressively reduced burdens.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for giving way a second time. The new clause refers to review of the
    "operation of the order in the fifth year".
    Does that requirement imply that there will be no further reviews after the review has occurred? Should there not be ongoing reviews every five years? I fully appreciate that the burden that such a requirement would place on Parliament—if not business—might become quite heavy.
    Mr. Lansley: It is not our intention, as will be obvious to my hon. Friend, that the new clause should create a
    526
    structure of continuous reviews. Of course, a balance must be struck in terms of the burden that we place on the House and on the civil service in producing the reports to which the new clause refers. We do not want to impose a bureaucratic process for the sake of it.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike rose—
    Mr. Lansley: I shall happily give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Deregulation.
    Mr. Pike: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman listed all the tests that are applied. Has not the Deregulation Committee in the current and previous Parliaments carried out its duties carefully to ensure that all proposals meet those tests? Is it not reasonable to assume that, in the next Parliament, the new Committee will do its job in exactly the same way. whoever serves on it? If such a five-year clause is to be implemented, could not a similar provision be contained in almost every single other Bill that the House enacts?
    Mr. Lansley: As Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be only too aware of the structure into which the new clause would fit. He is perfectly right that it is one of the tasks of the House of Commons Deregulation Committee and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords to scrutinise in due course the tests that must be met under the regulatory reform orders. It is certainly our hope that the conscientiousness with which those Committees conduct their work will be reflected in the next Parliament, as it has been in this one.
    The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand that the new clause is in no sense intended to undermine the task of the Committees or to suggest that they might not do their job effectively when regulatory reform orders are made. It is simply to reflect the fact that, over time, decisions and judgments can change. For example, the fair balance test applies to the public interest versus the burdens that are imposed on others. Although that balance is expected to be fair and to pass the test, time may show that not to be the case.
    To complete my answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), just as we hope to create a review structure for regulatory reform orders, there is also good case for introducing sunset clauses, which create burdens.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the mechanism in the new clause resembles the regulatory impact assessment that the Deregulation Committee sought to obtain from the Government? My hon. Friend seeks an assessment of regulatory impact after five years rather than when the measure is introduced.
    Mr. Lansley: It is true that the document that new clause 1 proposes is a review of the regulatory impact. However, my hon. Friend knows that the tests that will be applied and reported under clause 6(2) are wider than conventional regulatory impact assessments. For example, the fair balance test does not test regulatory impact as such, but whether the balance between the benefits to the public interest and the burdens on private persons necessitate making the order. That is also true of benefits that accrue generally when burdens are imposed. A fair balance and

    527
    desirability do not exactly constitute the mechanism of a regulatory impact assessment. A judgment must be made about costs and benefits. Ministers must review that after an order has been introduced.
    Mr. Brian White: I have some sympathy with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's aim, which is a review after five years. However, the Deregulation Committee or its successor will examine the impact of the orders after three years. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to achieve that is different from the aim of the Deregulation Committee?
    New clause 1 would provide for the order to expire. Reintroducing an order after five years in a completely different climate, which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned, may not be the best way in which to proceed. Its effect would be re-regulation.
    Mr. Lansley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point, because, as I understand it, the review that the Deregulation Committee proposes would not allow a detailed examination of each order's effects. It would examine the process and the purposes for which the regulatory reform order procedure had been used. I hope that the volume of deregulatory activity under regulatory reform orders will be so substantial that examining each one in detail would be beyond the scope of a review by the Deregulation Committee. A flow of reports that would allow the House to examine the effect of individual regulatory reform orders is a better process.
    On reviewing regulatory reform orders differently, future Ministers may find that, in practice, such orders create a new structure of regulation One of the most obvious examples that Ministers have presented is the proposal to re-regulate the complex structure of fire safety legislation. I suspect that Ministers would freely acknowledge that the likelihood of their getting that structure right first time is limited. The prospect of having to return to the process is quite high
    2 pm
    We are not proposing that there would of necessity have to be the disapplication of the first regulatory reform order on fire safety legislation before bringing in another. It would be open to Ministers to bring forward a new order and to go through the normal process of scrutiny, for example, so as to deliver the objective.
    The new clause is intended to introduce a review process, which is valuable in itself. In circumstances where the review gives rise to the conclusion, by Ministers or the House, that the regulatory reform order agreed to previously did not have the benefits that it was intended to have—it did not meet, for example, the fair-balance test, or in the event had removed necessary protection that should have been retained—the best way in which to proceed may be to disapply the order rather than to seek to start again with a new order.
    The benefit of the new clause is primarily in the obligation which it lays before Ministers to present a review. Secondarily, it gives Ministers the opportunity to use the simple mechanism of disapplying an order before thinking again about how to deal with it.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case for the new clause. Is he aware
    528
    that in addition to reflecting the wishes of the authentic voices of British business, the new clause also enjoys vociferous support from Mrs. Marion Rix, the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Milton Keynes, North-East? That is a matter of importance to the House, as she is about to replace the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) as that constituency's representative in this place.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I would be grateful for the support of the prospective parliamentary candidate to whom he refers, who I know happens to have many positive qualities.
    My hon. Friend brings me to an important point. He says correctly that the principle of sunsetting—we are talking of a review provision that allows for that possibility—has wide support. Only about a week ago, the British Chambers of Commerce published its pre-election manifesto, entitled "Empowering Business". One of the organisation's objectives, in the context of a better regulatory environment, is that the Government should
    "make the criteria for sunsetting regulations explicit and use sunsetting as a norm in all new regulations."
    The Institute of Directors has likewise said that it believes that the Government should
    "introduce a programme of reviewing the regulations that affect individual sectors on a regular rolling basis. This could be every five years. Regulations should have sunset clauses so that they expire unless there is a conscious attempt to renew them."
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has talked about the need for a cost-benefit analysis as part of the review, and there was a discussion of fire safety regulation. Does he share my concern that when it comes to fire safety regulation and health and safety at work regulation, in practice it is difficult for Members to take the decision to repeal legislation that may result in someone's injury or death, no matter how small the chance of that event might be?
    Mr. Lansley: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. I shall not be tempted by him to analyse health and safety legislation. I referred specifically to fire safety legislation because it is one of the most prominent examples that the Government have used of the way in which regulatory reform orders are intended to be used.
    In this context, it illustrates rather well the importance of such a review procedure, because a regulatory reform order relating to fire safety legislation might be laid before the House to structure the whole fire safety system round risk-based assessment rather than the present prescriptive approach. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that that might be a novel way of trying to address this form of regulation. That is not a bad thing, and it might be a good thing. It would, no doubt, redistribute burdens, in that it would create burdens for some and reduce them for others. Prospective impacts would be expected to flow from it, and they would be speculative. It is, therefore, important to review the operation and structure of such legislation, and I hope that Ministers will recognise the value of the new clause in allowing that to happen.
    I illustrated my case with the example of fire safety legislation. However, the new clause also fits with the business community's estimation of what a good regulatory environment should look like because it involves a constant

    529
    process of review. That is not the same as the constant downward pressure that the Government should apply to the total regulatory burden, but it is an essential part of helping to achieve that pressure.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing it in mind that the reviews would be held approximately five years after the introduction of the orders, does my hon. Friend believe that they would exert a downward pressure on the number of orders introduced, and that that could have a beneficial effect on the over-regulation of business?
    Mr. Lansley: I indeed believe that, for a rather civil-servant, Whitehall reason, among others. I am loth to create a bureaucratic process that creates additional burdens for the sake of it. Far be it from us to do that; we want to do quite the opposite. The process of review by which Departments will have to bring back before Parliament and substantiate earlier decisions and judgments will be a constraint on those Departments under-estimating the costs and impacts that flow from new regulation, or over-estimating the benefits. I hope that such a review process would be a persuasive psychological constraint on those who introduce regulation in the first place.
    My hon. Friend's intervention leads me to an interesting point. The five-year period would have a further benefit, because we would have allowed sufficient time to pass to understand the wider impacts of any regulation. There is a tendency, which we discussed briefly in Committee, at the point at which regulations are made, for the discussion of impacts to focus on the direct compliance costs, and the measurable, immediate, direct effects of introducing a regulation. However, the impacts of any legislation tend to be wider and longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) implied earlier, the impacts tend to be on an industry's relative competitiveness, and the relative costs to businesses.
    I shall illustrate that point with one of the most forceful examples of the necessity of re-examining the kind of regulatory impact assessments that have previously been made by Departments. The House will recall the recent passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. At that time, a regulatory impact assessment was attached to the legislation. I have it here. The regulatory impact assessment on part I of the Act states:
    "Total compliance costs in the short term are not expected to exceed the measure of significance (£20M) used by the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office."
    Subsequently, the assessment says of part III:
    "total compliance costs to business relating to Part III of the RIP Bill are not expected to exceed the measure of significance (£20M) used by the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office."
    On the face of it, the 2000 Act seems relatively benign. However, in the course of an examination of the economic impact of the Act, the British Chambers of Commerce commissioned an independent report, to which there were a number of contributors. It was essentially conducted by independent academics. It is interesting to look at their conclusions about the prospective impacts of the Act. They stated in relation to part I that the direct cost to internet service providers over five years would be £640 million.
    530
    The report then looked at the costs arising from the technical design requirements that would lead to the diversion of business away from UK suppliers to non-UK suppliers. It said that estimates of the overall cost to the UK vary considerably, but are likely to reach more than £1 billion a year by 2002.
    The report's authors considered that the compliance costs in relation to part III were substantially underestimated, and that a five-year estimate would be of the order of £640 million. They then looked at the overall financial implications of the Act. They looked at the losses and leakage, as they put it, to the UK economy from diversion generally and the cost, and put those at a total of up to £46 billion in the first five years of operation.
    Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has written to the British Chambers of Commerce pointing out that the figures just quoted are greater than the entire internet turnover of the various companies at the time? The figure for leakage is given as 5 per cent. but the figures add up to more than 100 per cent. of current turnover.
    Mr. Lansley: This is not the time to examine the whole report, which runs to 35 pages. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the report anticipates diversion not from an existing but a prospective level of business over up to five years. In a sense, he has helped to make my point. The authors of the report are working within a range of estimates of the growth of business for internet service providers over five years.
    Given the conflicting estimates of the regulatory impacts over a five-year period, we could find that the Home Office is right and that the regulatory impacts of the legislation over five years are modest. Alternatively, we could find that the costs are at the high end, illustrated by the report prepared for the British Chambers of Commerce, which I agree seem very large indeed. If the report is right about the direct costs of £640 million or the cost of the diversion of business amounting to £1 billion, those figures are orders of magnitude greater than the regulatory impacts foreseen by the Home Office in the report.
    We may not know for two or three years whose estimate is right. However, it would be regrettable if Ministers legislated on the basis of one set of estimates and the whole system goes to "fire and forget" when it ought to be the responsibility of the House to look again at the legislation. It is the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that when we have the opportunity to do so, we shall review it for that reason.
    2.15 pm
    Mr. Bercow: We do not need to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. Is it not the case that the torrent of regulations and the absence of any trigger mechanism for their review prevents businesses from expanding, causes them to stand still and forces many of them to shed staff? Does my hon. Friend agree that even if we leave aside the considerable number of companies that go bankrupt, large numbers of small business owners,

    531
    faced with this unfavourable regulatory environment, choose to give up the unequal struggle against the regulatory leviathan altogether?
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a case against the burden of regulation, as he does regularly. He sets the argument in the right context. It is wrong for us to think, as we are often tempted to, about individual regulations while ignoring regulation in general and the overall burden that it imposes.
    It is vital, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my tight hon. Friend the Member for Wells, the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry, have made perfectly clear, to set our regulatory activity in the context of commitments not only to sunset clauses but to regulatory budgets so that we bring down the burden of regulation progressively. That is the only way to unlock competitiveness and bring further growth.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman outlined a range of important issues that need to be addressed. However, does he not accept that his view that deregulation is the only way to success is wrong and that underinvestment has had at least the same impact, if not a greater one, than regulation?
    Mr. Lansley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should characterise my remark as suggesting that regulation is the only issue for competitiveness. It is, none the less, important for that. The latest MORI survey of business suggests that the ranking of importance of issues to businesses for their future competitiveness is skills shortages, followed by regulation. He should not underestimate the importance of regulation to business in its future competitiveness.
    Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that investment is important. Businesses will find, I am afraid, that the structure of domestic savings in the economy is such that the future prospects for investment are considerably reduced, as is the prospect for private sector investment and consumption, because the Government are crowding out private sector activity with extravagant growth in the public sector.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is more than generous in giving way to me. What is important, as the Prime Minister might say, is to recognise that there is a problem. Is my hon. Friend aware that the World Economic Forum has identified the fact that Britain, which was in fourth place in the competitiveness league for businesses in 1997, when the Government came to power, has fallen to ninth place?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Slvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the new clause?
    Mr. Fabricant: This has everything to do with new clause 1. You will have read new clause 1, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of competitiveness can be combated by new clause 1, which would ensure that regulations that create uncompetitiveness can be repealed?
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. New clause 1 would create a structure of review similar to
    532
    sunset clauses and should be applied to new burdens created in primary legislation. It is an important part of creating a deregulatory framework.
    Sir Martin Jacomb was instrumental in privatising British Telecom in the mid-1980s. He later became chairman of the Prudential and deputy chairman of Barclays bank. This week, he wrote in The Daily Telegraph about the impact of regulations and bureaucracy on business. I shall refer to only one of his recommendations for turning back the tide of regulation. He stated that home-grown regulations should have sunset provisions built in, that they should be subject to automatic review after a specified period, and that they should automatically expire if not renewed. The Bill is a regulatory measure as well as a deregulatory measure, so it is important to build a sunset review into the structure of regulation.
    Finally, I draw attention to the fact that a review provision under the new clause would allow the House to become more aware than hitherto of the burden of regulation as experienced outside. We want to get away from "fire and forget" with regard to regulations, because even now our knowledge of regulatory impacts is limited.
    In March, the Minister for the Cabinet Office published the latest of her six-monthly reports on regulatory impact assessments. It detailed the 79 assessments made between 1 July and 31 December 2000—more than enough for six months, one would have thought—but one or two seemed to have been omitted. I was surprised at that, given how comprehensive and thorough she is, so I investigated further.
    I found that 20 regulatory impact assessments made by Government Departments were not listed in the report. For example, an assessment was published of a European directive relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. The assessment was signed by Lord Whitty on 5 December 2000, and estimated the cumulative effect of the proposals in annualised costs to UK manufacturers at between £980 million and £1.47 billion, with a price impact on a new medium-sized vehicle of between £420 and £885.
    Other assessments of orders or regulations absent from the March report are equally interesting. They include assessments of orders dealing with regulating the supply of number plates, which has a less marked impact than the example that I have just given. Another assessment was of an order dealing with the supply of new cars, which was signed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 31 July. Another missing assessment relates to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in which additional continuing costs were estimated at £74 million a year.
    Among the other assessments missing from the report was one of an order relating to a proposal to introduce vehicle identity checks. That order was signed by a Minister in another place from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and its cost was estimated at £22 million a year. Another order—the only one that I could find that benefited industry through a reduction in compliance costs—related to the Gaming Act 1968. Another, dealing with fees for goods vehicles—
    Mr. Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the costs of implementing

    533
    regulations to assist disabled people. I remind him that many disabled people have made a huge contribution to the country's economy but, without the regulations that allow them to work, their skills would be lost to us.
    Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. My purpose is not to debate the merits of the measures, which may be greater than their costs. That relationship is examined when any regulation is introduced. I am sure that he will agree that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was an excellent measure. It was taken through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I agree that there is a need to protect disabled people in law.
    Some of the measures incur substantial costs, but it is beyond many hon. Members to keep track of the regulatory impacts of legislation.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend has given the House a list of orders and regulations subject to regulatory impact assessment. Do most of them emanate from the UK Parliament, or from the EU? Does not he believe that sunset clauses or a five-year review should apply equally to regulations emanating from Europe? Unlike Britain, other countries in Europe do not even try to implement regulations that inflict tremendous on-costs on our business.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government must show a determination to achieve deregulation in British legislation, and demonstrate a willingness to impose the sunset clause structure on UK regulation. Otherwise, they could not argue in good conscience, to the European Commission and the European Council, that a similar structure should be imposed on European legislation. It is vital that we do that, because many of the measures to which I referred emanate from European legislation.
    I should clarify to my hon. Friend that I was not quoting from the Cabinet Office report. I was referring to regulatory impact assessments that apparently were made in the relevant period but which did not appear in that report. Some of the regulations and orders stem from domestic legislation, but others, such as the one dealing with changed emission standards for passenger and light commercial vehicles, are made domestically in response to European directives. The RIA in that case found the costs involved to be very large, and the relevant regulations arose from European directive 98/69/EC. The measure was therefore not so much UK-inspired as EU-inspired.
    Mr. Bercow: I am relieved that my hon. Friend agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), that the principle of the Bill should also apply to European directives and regulations. Does he agree that, when it eventually does so, it should be capable of retrospective effect? Unless that were the case, the House could not address the legitimate concerns of business organisations about the Part-time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. I am sure that my hon. Friend is intimately familiar with every line of them.
    2.30 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I may be, but then again, I may not. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, although I must confess that I am not often tempted by retrospection. One of the objectives of regulation is to provide certainty and clarity. The greatest uncertainty that one can create for businesses is to make them believe legislation is one thing only for them to find that it has been changed, so I am not tempted to say that we should pursue retrospection. Indeed, sunset clauses are not designed for that purpose but to enable a review of what has occurred to be undertaken so that the necessary changes can be made to achieve a deregulatory effect.
    Certainly, if the objective—to which I know my hon. Friend subscribes—is to reduce the burden of regulation systematically and progressively, no doubt he will look to the proposals that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made to apply a regulatory budget to Government Departments. That would have to include the impact of EU measures on the UK. To return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) rightly made, the necessity of taking such measures in new clause 1 and applying them to European legislation should be borne in mind. If we do not do that, we shall have no way of preventing those burdens from being imposed on us by Europe.
    In conclusion, it will be apparent to the House that the objective is a measured one. It is not to disapply regulatory reform orders willy-nilly, but to provide for a review process. Business organisations clearly subscribe to the idea of a systematic process of review, as was illustrated on Second Reading by Ministers and Labour Members who claimed to attach importance to the views of business organisations in relation to the Bill. I hope that they accept that those organisations believe that the structure of the legislation would be much improved by a built-in sunset provision. The need for review is clear because—I hope—the volume of regulatory reform orders and their importance will be such that we should not allow legislation to be made without Parliament being aware of its effects.
    I hope that the Bill will have a beneficial impact on Whitehall in ensuring that the statements in documents laid before Parliament when regulatory reform orders are first made are as rigorous and justifiable as possible, because Ministers and officials will know that they will be subject to detailed scrutiny against subsequent experience. New clause 1 will therefore help to position the Bill in the structure of the new deregulatory intention that the Conservatives will achieve when we are in government after the general election.
    Mr. White: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) began by making a fairly good case in relation to the review, but the longer he continued his argument, the more it revealed the true nature of his intentions. If we are serious about having a review, we should address the way in which the House reviews regulations and the myriad Committees involved. They include the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Deregulation Committee and various European Standing Committees. New clause 1 does not even attempt to do that.
    It became clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he continues to confuse content with application. There may be a fundamental argument about content.

    535
    The intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) completely confused the content of regulation with its application, and I am glad that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was not tempted down the route that the hon. Member for Buckingham was leading him. I would be the first to say that a great deal of bureaucracy is involved in the application of regulations on health and safety and employment rights, for example, but their content is extremely important. In those cases, the content may be right, but there is an argument about whether their application is the best way of proceeding.
    Mr. Bercow: It is always a pleasure to joust with one of my parliamentary neighbours. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with me, and frankly I should be considerably alarmed if he did not, but he is quite wrong to accuse me of being confused as between content and application. I am not in any way confused about this important matter. I strongly deprecate the content of much of the regulation that is foisted on British and Buckinghamshire business and I strongly object to the manner of its implementation.
    Mr. White: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not confused and that he is indeed opposed to the content of certain regulations. If a Tory Government were ever to be re-elected and the hon. Gentleman were to get the chance to implement his views, I fear that the country would be damaged by the removal of regulations protecting employees' rights or health and safety. I am reminded of Churchill's comments when he introduced the wages councils. He spoke of the need to introduce regulation in order to stop the worst driving out the good. The hon. Gentleman and the modern Conservative party should look again at the history of their party in providing those protections.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the content and the implementation of regulation and making assertions about what a future Conservative Government may or may not do. Will he give a moment's consideration to the amount of regulation that the Labour Government have introduced over the past four years? It has increased exponentially. Every business—small, medium and large—complains about it, as does every part of the public sector, including the teaching profession, doctors and hospitals. Does he agree that we have had far too much regulation, and does he not welcome means to reduce it?
    Mr. White: I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which looked at the number of regulations that are made per year—it averages about 3,000, which is the same as under the previous Government. The hon. Lady misses the point that a high percentage of those regulations simply change the level of a fee or have some similar effect. Therefore, it is not enough simply to look at the total number of regulations.
    The Deregulation Committee or its successor will consider regulatory reform measures, and that is the appropriate way forward. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to say that review is absolutely critical, but he is wrong to propose the introduction of a sunset clause that would allow re-regulation, which is why I fear that new clause 1 takes entirely the wrong direction.
    536
    As I have said in the House, there is a role for a sunset clause in respect of certain pieces of primary legislation, but new clause 1 would not achieve that. Nor does it address the mechanisms with which a review should be conducted. I would argue that the Deregulation Committee's recommendation of a review after three years rather than five is the appropriate way forward and I would urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reiterate the commitment that he gave in Committee to take on board the proposals of the Deregulation Committee.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: I rise at this late stage of the proceedings on the Bill as possibly the only hon. Member present who was not a member of the Standing Committee to support the good intention of the Bill and to join my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in urging the Government to go further in a number of significant areas.
    I look at the issue with a fresh mind, unclouded by the experience of the Committee. It seems to me that the Bill reflects a considerable amount of common ground between the parties. First, there is general recognition among Members on both sides of the House that the extent, burden, complexity and enforcement style of Government regulations are serious issues.
    The story began under the previous Conservative Government. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was appointed to the Department of Trade and Industry in 1992, he created the deregulation taskforce and set up a unit of DTI civil servants to support it. When he became Deputy Prime Minister five years ago, he took that unit with him to the Cabinet Office—the heart of the Government machine. When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they retained the unit in the Cabinet Office. It is true that they renamed it the "better regulation taskforce", arguing—perhaps ominously—that, whereas deregulation implies that regulation is not needed, in fact
    "good regulation can benefit us all".
    That shift of philosophical perspective has so far not turned out to be as portentous as might have been feared. Lord Haskins and his colleagues in the taskforce and the officials in the regulatory impact unit scrutiny team and in the departmental regulatory impact units deserve our thanks for their continuing work.
    A second area of common ground between the parties is reflected in the Bill. The measure builds on the Conservative Government's Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. At the time, the Labour Opposition strongly criticised the Act, but in government—as in so many other areas—Labour has been content to build silently and without acknowledgement on what they inherited, covering their retreat from the asperities of Opposition with the odd name change and the occasional philosophical flourish.
    The 1994 Act was an innovative piece of legislation; some of its innovations were clearly experimental—they were always going to require improvement in the light of experience. For example—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating new clause 1 rather than Second Reading.
    Mr. Jackson: As I did not participate in the Committee proceedings, I wanted to give some background to my thoughts on new clause 1, but I shall address it directly.
    Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend share my view that one of the benefits of new clause 1, in allowing a review

    537
    and a simple disapplication of regulatory reform orders, is that it introduces an additional buttress to the supra-affirmative procedure that is at the heart of the new mechanism introduced under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act? At the time and since, the procedure was seen by the House to be exceptional—it was designed for a particular purpose.
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend; that is precisely one of the points that I want to make. At this stage of my speech, however, I am suggesting that, as there is much common ground, that may be a reason for the Government to move towards the Opposition on new clause 1.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend helpfully traces the background to our discussion. I have a characteristically non-partisan observation. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to refer to our right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is very important, very senior, very distinguished, very influential, very respected and very busy, but does he agree that one of the difficulties during the tenure of our right hon. Friend was that, although he presided over the elimination of a good many regulations, a substantial number of new regulations simultaneously appeared—not least from Europe? Does that not underline the importance of a structured and strategic approach and of a proper review mechanism? Apparently, that did not occur to our right hon. Friend.
    2.45 pm
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. The issue is important. There is a continuing tide of regulatory activity—much of which is justified, but some of which may not be. It is appropriate that there should be proper mechanisms in the House and in the other place to address that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire makes proposals, which I support, to improve those mechanisms, but I want to continue to outline why the Government should acknowledge that there is common ground between the parties on which we can build.
    A final and important area of common ground is the way in which the operation of the legislative procedures in both Houses of Parliament has been developed under the 1994 Act. The Select Committee on Deregulation, whose Chairman was in the Chamber earlier, and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the other place are examples—I hope, pioneering examples—of Select Committees performing what are, in essence, legislative functions.
    The Bill reflects a welcome convergence of views between the parties on both the substance of the matters with which it deals and the procedures by which we address them. Of course, the Opposition would like the Government to go further and faster. Although the Cabinet Office is probably right in claiming, on its internet site, that the number of new regulatory measures significantly affecting business has remained
    "broadly stable in recent years"—
    a figure of 166 in 1999 is given—that is merely a statistical measure; it does not adequately reflect the growth, under the Labour Government, of the burden and complexity of regulation.
    538
    The Opposition have opposed that trend as it has manifested itself in successive pieces of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire explained, in the specific area of regulatory reform—the subject of the Bill— we have made proposals to strengthen the arrangements set up in the mid-1990s and maintained by the Labour Government.
    The issues raised by new clause 1 are the subject of continuing debate—we have yet to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has to say about it; there seems to be a divergence of view between the Opposition and some Government Back Benchers, especially on sunset clauses, which are addressed in the new clause. I urge the Government to build on the wide common ground that I have described and to give a fair wind to my hon. Friend's proposal, even at this late stage of the Bill's proceedings.
    The Government ought to offer a package deal, in relation to which I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire in his intervention. In many ways, the most important feature of the Bill is its provision for the use of new procedures set up under the 1994 Act not only to simplify and reduce the burden of regulation, but, in certain strictly defined circumstances, to apply new regulatory burdens. I realise that the Government are sensitive to the natural concern to which the proposal gives rise—that innovative procedures, which have been working well on the implicit basis that regulatory burdens should be reduced, might be diverted into the expansion of such burdens. That is why we have associated with the proposals all the provisions in clause 3 for necessary protection, reasonable expectations, fair balance and desirability and, in clause 1, for proportionality. That is why the Government made concessions on desirability to Lord Goodhart in the other place.
    I hope and believe that it will be possible to maintain all-party consensus on the matter; that is why we want to introduce amendments dealing with the creation of new regulatory burdens—although as that issue is dealt with by amendment No. 2. I shall not address it now. It is clear that the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is to build that consensus. The two Select Committees were unanimously of the view that the new powers could be constructively exercised in the spirit of the work that has been going on since 1994.
    I draw attention to the reservations, expressed in the Deregulation Committee's third special report, about the Government's refusal to accept a requirement for the provision of regulatory impact assessments. I referred to that matter during an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. The Committee suggested that there should be a link between the new powers desired by the Executive to extend regulatory burdens and the introduction of a new procedure to contain and limit regulatory burdens. That is what I had in mind when I referred to a package deal.
    If the type of regulatory impact assessment that is sought by the Deregulation Committee in this place is impractical for some reason, or is too burdensome, surely the Government could look constructively at whether the Opposition's proposal in new clause 1 might offer a more satisfactory alternative. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire explained, the Opposition do not have in mind the simple, sunset provision that was examined and rejected last year by the Delegated Powers

    539
    and Deregulation Committee in the other place. The Opposition recognise that a provision for the automatic expiry of all regulatory reform orders after a certain period could create an intolerable burden for Parliament and officials.
    My hon. Friends propose a system of automatic post facto regulatory impact assessments, by which the Government have to report on the operation of all orders approved under the new procedures after five years, so that their effectiveness in practice may be considered and their continuing operation approved by Parliament in the light of those reports.
    That proposal seems eminently reasonable. It could offer the sort of balance required for the Executive's new regulatory powers under the legislation and also required in the spirit of the joint work on deregulation. In the other place, the Cabinet Office Minister, Lord Falconer, gave a commitment to report to Parliament on the operation of the Act three years after its enactment. We may have to wait for that review before the Government take on board the thinking that is embodied in new clause 1.
    I hope that, even at this late stage in our proceedings, the Government will demonstrate that they have an open mind and that they are open to constructive suggestions. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the House and hope that the Government will say that they are willing to accept it.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Hon. Members have said that there is some cross-party agreement about regulation and deregulation. I think that all sensible commentators acknowledge the urgency of removing unnecessary burdens. What disappoints me about Opposition Members is their unbalanced approach to the issue. They focus, properly, on industry, but they do so in an unbalanced way. The regulations and this system of deregulation will affect individuals across the spectrum. They will affect not merely industry but social policy.
    The intention behind the Opposition's new clause is to ensure that the Government review regulations after five years. The Opposition keep referring to sunset clauses, with which new clause 1 does not deal. That policy is not acceptable to Labour Members and, in particular, to Labour members of the Deregulation Committee. We are firmly in favour of the constant review of regulations in the bid to get rid of those that are unnecessary or burdensome. The three-year period that the Government have suggested is a much better option, when one bears in mind the continuous regulatory review philosophy.
    Therefore, I will vote against new clause 1 and I hope that my colleagues on the Labour Benches and in the other Opposition parties will join me.
    Mr. Fabricant: I do not follow how one can have a constant review as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) has suggested. This Government alone have introduced 3,000 regulations. How could a committee keep so many regulations constantly under review?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). What is at issue is the process. No single committee could do that on its own.
    540
    Therefore, we have to establish a culture of regulatory review across all Departments and have a proper structure, in line with that outlined by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Fabricant: That culture patently does not exist, which is why the Government have introduced the Bill and I commend them for doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) pointed out, successive Governments have tried to regulate the burden on industry and, as the hon. Member for Eccles said, on other parts of our society, and we all welcome that.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is being extraordinarily gentle with the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). Does he agree that the hon. Gentleman, in a thoroughly unpersuasive fashion, erected an elaborate smokescreen by talking about an on-going review, when the Government are undertaking nothing of the sort? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would at least be a credible earnest of the Government's good intentions in this matter if they were to publish an annual statement of the costs of regulation? The Government do not do so, as they told me in readiness for my ten-minute Bill on 27 April 1999.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Government do not produce a cost-benefit analysis of their regulations, just as they do not want to produce one for our membership of the European Union, simply because they do not want to publish whether there is a cost or a benefit for either. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about the intervention by the hon. Member for Eccles, the process of continual review has been singularly ineffective—
    Mr. Bercow: Absent.
    Mr. Fabricant: Indeed, it has been absent. That is why the Government are trying to change the situation by introducing this Bill. It is necessary, but new clause 1 would strengthen it. I fear that, without the new clause, the Bill would simply be another paper tiger. There is no question but that the new clause is necessary.
    As I tried to point out earlier, the competitiveness of British industry—I shall deal with other aspects of our social life in this country—has declined. It was in fourth place in 1997 and now it is ninth, which is a drop of five places. That is serious. To those who say that we are booming and booming, I point out that the first thing that suffers when business, and commerce in general, declines is advertising. It is always the first to go.
    Capital Radio plc—an organisation with which I was intimately involved before I came to the House—has had to issue a profit warning and Scottish Radio Holdings, which may be closer to the heart of the hon. Member for Eccles, has also—
    Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman denies it, but I pointed it out only because I thought that I detected from his accent the slightest Scottish connection.
    In Scotland too, commercial radio stations have had to issue profit warnings on the amount of advertising revenue that they receive. The first thing that companies do when they start to get into difficulties is to cut their advertising budgets; hence the need for new clause 1.

    541
    The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it is not merely industry per se that will be affected; other aspects of our lives will be affected, too. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked about fire safety and I mentioned health and safety regulations in an intervention. I greatly fear that, if new clause 1 is accepted and the Government try to conduct reviews in those areas, they will find it difficult.
    3 pm
    It has to be said that all Governments have the gravest difficulty in handling regulations that have been introduced to produce safety mechanisms for workers and people in general. There is a ratchet effect. No one wants people to be put in harm's way, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, there must be a risk assessment—a new approach to the way in which we analyse the effect of regulations on businesses and individuals. However, as we have seen already in relation to the consequences of the Hatfield tragedy, that risk assessment is not easy.
    A huge amount of money has been invested, quite rightly, in refurbishing our rail stock and, to some degree, the lines themselves. Given the statistics provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, one must consider that, post Hatfield, it is still eight times safer to travel on the railways than on the roads per passenger mile—perhaps I should say per passenger kilometre nowadays.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Oh, don't.
    Mr. Fabricant: I shall stick to using the phrase "per passenger mile".
    That is the sort of risk assessment that people have to make when considering the possibility of injury or death. If we were to say that travelling on the roads carries a greater risk, the Government would not say that we must close all our roads, because that would be a ridiculous consequence.
    The point that I am making—perhaps not very well at the moment, but I shall clarify it—is that there is a risk to everything in life, whether travelling by road, by air, or even crossing a road on foot, and Governments have constantly to assess whether the risk is so great that regulations must be introduced. However, new clause 1 would go further than that. It states that there should be a review as to whether a regulation should be removed, which is a wholly different question. New clause 1 states that, if the review says that something is not worth keeping, the House can consider
    "a resolution to that effect … within ninety days of"
    the regulation being removed. That would create huge difficulties for individuals and Parliament.
    If there were only a 10 per cent. risk—no, let me go further—if there were a one-in-a-million chance of someone being killed, that regulation may not be laid before the House in the first place. Post facto, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said, would Members of Parliament have the courage to say
    542
    that, with a one-in-a million chance of injury or death, the regulation was not worth keeping if the consequence of its removal was the death of 60 people in this country?
    Mr. Bercow: At least part of the valid point that my hon. Friend makes is the fact that something with a benign name does not necessarily mean that it will have a benign content. Does he agree that we should take care not to confine ourselves to the discussion of manufacturing industry or high-tech business, or even of the impact of regulation on the public sector, but that we should be prepared to consider the impact of regulation on agriculture? May I tell him that regular reviews of the integrated pollution prevention controls would be warmly received by Mr. James King of Cowley farm, Preston Bisset, near Buckingham in my constituency, as a welcome, if belated wedding present?
    Mr. Fabricant: I can well imagine that Preston Bisset welcomes the very important remark that my hon. Friend makes. Incidentally, I wish Mr. King a very happy wedding in the hope that he might be watching on the Parliament channel—but that, of course, would be out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall not pursue that line further. As well giving a plug for his constituent, my hon. Friend points out that, as the hon. Member for Eccles said, the Bill and new clause 1 would apply to many areas.
    We should not underestimate the inability of new clause 1, or any of the provisions in the Bill, to deal with regulations that emanate from the House under a directive from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has already said that many regulations come directly from EU directives. We in the House must ask ourselves two questions. First, are we gold-plating the directives? Are we making the directives so tough that they provide an imbalance—an unlevel playing field—between this country and other EU countries? Secondly, do we enforce such directives to a greater degree than those in other EU countries, so that, yet again, we have compounded the problem of the unlevel playing field? I should like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire to say in winding up whether new clause 1, which Conservative Members support, would deal with that problem. Could we review legislation that is a direct consequence of EU directives? How could we seek to reverse such orders?
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes some, powerful and cogent points. He is dealing with whether regulations arise from our own domestic Parliament or from Europe. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Many of the regulations relate to agriculture, which is probably the most regulated sector in the EU. Has he any evidence that the United Kingdom tends to implement such regulations quicker than any other member state? I commend the official Conservative agriculture policy, which is now only to implement European regulations at the speed of the slowest European country. Does he think that that would encourage the Commission to issue fewer regulations?
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The whole House recognises his expertise in agriculture. I do not claim to compete with him on his knowledge of agricultural affairs, even though there are

    543
    many farms in my constituency, but I can give an example that relates to agriculture—food distribution. I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) not to intervene and ask me to mention someone's name, but two years ago—this relates directly to new clause 1, Madam Deputy Speaker—I was with him in Boulogne, where we happened to visit a supermarket with someone else. He—not my hon. Friend—is a director of the John Lewis Partnership, which owns Waitrose. I know that I am trying your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to make the point, which is relevant to the question that my hon. Friend asks, that he was looking at the freezer cabinets in a large supermarket, and it was very clear that they were not complying—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to make is germane to new clause 1.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am very conscious of the fact that you think it might not be germane, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is because new clause 1 seeks to level the playing field, as, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire will confirm. The example of the supermarket clearly shows that France, at least, does not abide by EU regulations. Waitrose and, no doubt, other supermarkets have spent hundreds of millions of pounds in the past few years complying with British and EU regulations, whereas that is not the case at least in that large supermarket in Boulogne.
    I hope that new clause 1 will consider not only whether regulations should have been introduced in the first place, but whether they are enforced more strictly in the United Kingdom than in other EU countries. That should form part of the review that is mentioned in new clause 1(1). I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire will confirm that, when European directives are enforced in the United Kingdom, they will be examined in terms of not only their content but their application. That follows on directly from the points—some of them admirable—made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). These are the key issues.
    Regulations that are not enforced will not be a burden on industry or society but, if they are concerned with the protection of the individual, they will not provide protection. Not only the content of regulations but their application need to be considered. That means considering whether they are applied not only in this country but in a similar manner in other countries.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Has the hon. Gentleman done any research or cost-benefit analysis on the speed of implementation of European Union directives in other EU member states? Would he be willing to place that burden on civil servants in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and I am grateful to him for doing so; he is right to ask that question. I have not done that analysis, but I have read analyses produced by the British Chambers of Commerce, the Engineering Employers Federation and by many other organisations. I am sure that he has read them, too.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was right for the Government to have to conduct such reviews and I say, "Yes, it is right for them to do so." Remember who
    544
    pays for government—the taxpayers. Taxpayers, Madam Deputy Speaker, include you, me and the businesses that pay corporation tax. If businesses cannot sustain their business because they are uncompetitive, they will not pay tax. Therefore, it is in civil servants' interests to carry out such reviews to ensure that the tax stream continues to flow and that they continue to be employed, unlike those who would be laid off if we dropped from 9th to 20th place.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend might be interested to learn that, in a report produced for Politeia recently, Nicholas Boys Smith estimated the proportions of the regulatory burden on industry that derived from UK legislation and from EU legislation: half the total cost of £12.6 billion by May 2001 derives from EU legislation.
    Mr. Fabricant: That is very revealing. It demonstrates that, if EU regulation were enforced in the same way in other countries and were enshrined in national law in the same way throughout the EU, the burden might be difficult, but it would be equal. Does that not demonstrate that the problem in this country is one of gold-plating and of enforcement?
    You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the businesses in the Lichfield area that have suffered as a direct consequence of EU regulation. Does the House believe that we are punching our weight in the European Union, given that we are the second largest contributor to EU funds? However, I shall rapidly move on from that point.
    3.15 pm
    In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I remind him that an Institute of Directors' press release has pointed out that, not only has Britain become less competitive, but that that has happened primarily because
    "Britain's tax/GDP advantage has been eroded by the significant increase in the tax/GDP ratio since 1997 (from 35 per cent. in 1996/97 to 38 per cent., allowing for tax credits, in 2000/01) and"—
    this is the point—
    "secondly, the significant increase in labour market regulations."
    It does not take a helicopter ride over Stuttgart to see the cars piled up in the Mercedes car parks or a ride over Munich to see the holding stores for BMW cars to realise how much damage regulation has done to the German markets. Sadly, as has been demonstrated by the fall in advertising receipts, that is beginning to happen in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend raises an issue about competition, regulation and what is happening in some European countries—and he mentioned Germany. Is he aware that Germany is exporting its manufacturing industry because of the increased regulation that he has described? The European Union will have to tackle that issue head on if there is not be to a disaster for manufacturing throughout.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right, but I can see from your expression, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I should not expand on the point that she has made other

    545
    than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is found in the United Kingdom, too. We are now exporting work to Hungary and the other Visegrad countries.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's speech has been characterised by the restraint and self-effacement for which he is renowned on both sides of the House. I hope very much that he will not conclude his remarks without reminding us of the scenario that he faced as a small business man in the 1980s. Will he confirm for the record and beyond peradventure that, if he were faced with the decision as to whether to start up a broadcasting business in the context of this Government's regulatory policies, he probably would not do so and he would probably not be in the favourable position in which he now is, having sold it so that he can concentrate 100 per cent. on his duties in the House?
    Mr. Fabricant: Again, I see the expression on your face, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I agree with my hon. Friend. The environment now would make it quite difficult for me to start up a business. New clause 1 would ensure that businesses can start up in the future and that those that are already established survive.
    The weakness of the Bill is that it is full of good intentions, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was filled with good intentions when he also tried to regulate the number of new regulations—that sounds like a contradictions in terms—being introduced in the House and imposed on business. The importance of new clause 1 is that it would lead to a review after the fifth year and, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, that is important for two reasons.
    The first is that it is not always easy to anticipate the effects of a regulation when it is introduced. Secondly—this is an important point—the circumstances of a regulation in a business environment can change. Businesses in 2001 might have to operate in circumstances that are very different from the prevailing conditions in 1997. We have seen that happen time and again. I shall not repeat myself, but this country's competitiveness has fallen from fourth to ninth place.
    The new clause is important because it forces the Government to act. However, it has two weaknesses. First, it is not a sunset clause. I want it to be stronger. A review is helpful, but not enough. The new clause should provide for laws to be repealed if the cost-benefit analysis finds that they are an excessive burden on business. Secondly, I am not totally satisfied that the review happens only once. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire did not manage to convince me about that. He conceded that circumstances in a business environment can change after five years, but they can change again after 10 and 15 years. All regulations need to be kept under constant review, but not by the mechanism espoused by the hon. Member for Eccles because it has clearly not worked.
    Mr. Lansley: On the possible weakness of the new clause, the other place discussed an amendment moved by our noble Friends to disapply regulatory reform orders if, in the course of a review, they were found to impose much
    546
    greater costs than the original statement implied or did not substantially deliver the benefits that were intended. I have to confess to the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Fabricant: Oh!
    Mr. Lansley: Sorry, he is very much my hon. Friend.
    I have to confess that we did not think it right to do that because of the inherent complexity and difficulty associated with trying to measure and quantify costs and benefits to the extent of creating an automatic disapplication.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. When I did an economics degree all too long ago, we examined cost-benefit analyses and it is difficult to make them accurate. There is no question but that if there is "x" number of economists, there will be "x" number of results on virtually everything in a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that is why the Government are so keen not to accept my Bill, the Analysis of Costs and Benefits (European Union) Bill.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is wandering from the subject.
    Mr. Fabricant: On that note, I shall give way.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend mentions the need for regulation to change in the light of new technology. He is an expert on e-commerce. Does he agree that e-commerce and, in particular, the rolling out of the broad band, will change radically the way in which many businesses operate? It will be necessary to review a range of trade and financial regulations. Hence the need for new clause 1 to keep regulations under constant review.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a salient point. There are many examples of the problem, but I shall give just one. Telephony companies know that simple narrow band technology enables people to make telephone calls all around the world using internet systems for the price of a local call. They do not need broad band technology to do that. Telephony companies anywhere in the world, such as AT&T Communications and British Telecom, know that their days are numbered for charging premium rates for long-distance and international calls.
    New clause 1 would enable us to review the regulations that established Oftel when British Telecom was privatised and the telephony companies were freed up. However, as my hon. Friend says, circumstances have changed and they will change again in five years. You can bet your bottom dollar—or, regrettably in 10 years' time, your bottom euro—that circumstances will continue to change. It is not simply the rate of technological change that is relevant; the way in which companies undertake business will also change.
    I shall confess to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher and was a Thatcherite in the 1980s, but what was right then is not right now. Economies move on and circumstances change. I have no doubt that I would have been a member of the Labour party—old Labour—had I been in politics in 1900, but things change. As economic circumstances change—often driven by technological changes—so the

    547
    effect of a regulation on a business changes. A cost-benefit analysis might not have a positive flow in five years' time and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, that will change again in 10, 15 or 20 years.
    Mr. Bercow: I understand my hon. Friend's revisionism, and far be it from me to chide him for it. However, does he agree that it is important not to misrepresent—even if only inadvertently—the stance of one of our most distinguished noble Friends? To avoid doubt, does he agree that our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven is an enthusiast for new clause 1?
    Mr. Fabricant: Yes.
    I have probably spoken for long enough. The Bill is excellent, but toothless. The new clause would give it some teeth. If the Government oppose it, that will demonstrate that they merely have good intentions—as did the previous Government—to control the amount of regulation. It will show yet again that they are all about spin with no delivery.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I want to make a brief contribution to this excellent debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), I, too, did not have the benefit of serving on the Committee and it has been interesting to listen to the arguments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    I want to respond to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). I like him enormously; he is a good guy—no doubt I have now blighted his career. However, he chided the Opposition for concentrating too much on the business aspects of regulation. In an intervention I tried to point out that regulation affects every aspect of our lives, and I gave one or two examples. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the business aspect of regulation and the part that new clause 1 can play in ensuring that regulation is reviewed and, if possible, removed to assist business.
    3.30 pm
    My whole background is in small business. My father worked down the pits in County Durham, came south during the depression and worked in Birmingham. Eventually, after the war, he founded his own very small company at spaghetti junction with two partners. My young life, at weekends anyway, was spent going into "the works", as we said. It is perhaps that background that leads me to reflect on the fact that my constituents and organisations that represent businesses tell me that they are overburdened with regulation of one sort or another. I know that the point has been made several times during the debate, but I am reflecting it from my own particular experience.
    The previous Government and this Government have made efforts to restrict the amount of regulation. I admit that the previous Government's attempts were not overly successful, if they were successful at all. I have no doubt that Members in this place and the other place work extremely hard on the Deregulation Committee. However,
    548
    industry and business—small, medium and large—have not seen the benefits of the Committee's labours; they have not seen effective, helpful deregulation.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is kind to the members of the Deregulation Committee when she points out how hard they work, and I have no doubt that they do their job most conscientiously. However, she will no doubt want to know that whereas before the last general election, the Committee received a substantial number of deregulation and contracting-out orders, that number has since dwindled away to virtually nothing. The Committee will have to gear itself up if it is to make a substantial number of regulatory reform orders in future.
    Mrs. Winterton: I hope that my hon. Friend knows me well and indeed I hope that I am a kind person. I believe in saying nice things about people whenever I can find something nice to say. However, I said in my next breath that although the Committee's work was to be commended, it had not been very effective. My hon. Friend has pointed out precisely how ineffective it has become of late. I trust that the Bill, including new clause 1, which naturally I hope the Government will support, will contribute towards reducing regulation.
    Mr. Ian Stewart rose—
    Mrs. Winterton: I give way with great pleasure to that nice, kind man, the hon. Member for Eccles.
    Mr. Stewart: Calm down. Does the hon. Lady agree that the effectiveness of a particular Committee is determined by its work, not its work load?
    Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am inclined to view the Committee's work as business views it, and to ask whether business feels the good effects of its work, so I might not judge the work of that Committee, of which he is a member, from the same point of view as him.
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) made an interesting and philosophical intervention, but does my hon. Friend agree that work and work load are intimately linked? If a Committee is overburdened, it might not he able to produce any good work or, for that matter, bad work simply because the system will become blocked.
    Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he brings me neatly to my next point, which was made earlier in the debate. As he said, if a Committee is overworked, its output will be affected. The over-regulation of business takes up the time of the Executive, costs money and adversely affects companies' output, which affects their profits, which go back into investment. I believe that the hon. Member for Eccles pointed out earlier how important investment is. He will know that cash flow is equally important for small businesses.
    Mr. Bercow: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), my hon. Friend has been rather kind to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). Does she agree, however, that no man should judge in his own cause,

    549
    so the hon. Gentleman's rather feeble self-justificatory efforts should be treated with due circumspection? Does she accept that the Deregulation Committee now does too little work because it is too little interested in the responsibilities with which it has been charged? Frankly, a majority of the members of the Deregulation Committee do not believe in deregulation.
    Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and overall I agree with him. The focus that Baroness Thatcher placed on deregulation when she came into government has been lost over the years.
    Returning to new clause 1, it is encouraging that many organisations that represent business men support the idea of a sunset clause. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has tried to interpret and refine that concept into a power of review after five years, which is the essence of new clause 1.
    I note that the British Chambers of Commerce, which recently published its manifesto, is very much in favour of the loose description of the sunset clause. The manifesto broadly states that the first priority should be simplification of the tax system, and there is a hell of a regulatory burden in that. The organisation believes that business compliance costs should be considerably reduced and that there should be regulation only when it is absolutely necessary. I should have thought that the first question that should be asked by any Government who are about to introduce regulation is whether it is absolutely necessary. The British Chambers of Commerce believes that when regulation is necessary, the lightest of touches should be used. I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles that regulation is needed in some cases, but it must be good regulation, it must be properly considered and it must not be onerous. It must fulfil the purpose and no mores.
    As I pointed out earlier, the British Chambers of Commerce believes that we need fully to engage with the European Union to ensure that it promotes business competitiveness. If that happens, it will take a long time. I am 60 and my mother is 91, so I hope that the EU will consider business competitiveness as a matter of urgency, rather than letting Europe become more and more uncompetitive compared with the rest of the world.
    Mr. Fabricant: If when I am 60 I have a complexion like my hon. Friend's, I shall be a very happy man. Does she agree with me and, more important, with the Institute of Directors, which shares my belief, that the review mentioned in new clause 1 should not be a one-off event? In its submission, the IOD states that we should
    "Introduce a programme of reviewing the regulations that affect individual sectors on a regular, rolling basis."
    Does she agree that what is important—as the Prime Minister would say—is that because circumstances change regularly and nothing remains constant over time, reviews are needed, not as one-offs, but continuously and for as long as the regulation exists?
    Mrs. Winterton: The IOD is most enthusiastic about the concept of rolling reviews, but I believe that if we take the first step set out in new clause 1 and implement a review after five years, that will bring in its wake a
    550
    beneficial effect on regulation. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, I prefer to leave matters as they are in new clause 1 and not to pursue that course any further.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: I usually agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who is a man of great charisma and intelligence, but I believe that in this case he is wrong. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) leaves that point, will she reflect on the fact that a review is needed only if there is a regulation, and that if there were no regulation in the first place, no review would be needed? The whole problem is that one needs sunset clauses to get rid of regulations only if there are too many of them. Does she agree that the purpose of new clause 1 is not to act as a sunset clause, but to ensure that we do not have so many regulations that we have to get rid of them?
    Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a strong case and I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with him. I have tried to say that what everyone—including the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business—wants, rightly and properly, is less regulation to he introduced. My views and those of my hon. Friend marry well together.
    Mr. Steen: As usual, my hon. Friend has encapsulated in a few seconds what many of us have taken hours to say. Is not the point that this country is burdened by too much bureaucracy and regulation? Is it not amazing that while Opposition Members talk about trying to reduce the amount of bureaucracy, the Government are introducing a Bill that will extend—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Let us get back to the new clause.
    Mrs. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall say only that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has made his point in his own inimitable fashion.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has made a point that I have heard few make previously, which is that if the EU makes too many regulations, it will, as a trading block, become uncompetitive with the rest of the world—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with new clause 1.
    3.45 pm
    Mrs. Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Other hon. Members have touched on the important subject of agriculture. We all know the circumstances currently prevailing in the countryside, but my local farmers have been telling me for years that they have imposed on them regulation after regulation—most, if not all, of which originate in the EU, I hasten to add, but which are frequently gold-plated by the United Kingdom Government for the simple reason that we in this country have an ethos and custom of obeying regulation.
    Mr. Hendrick indicated dissent.
    Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman disagrees, but he has obviously not travelled far on the European

    551
    continent, as I did during my years as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture. Had he done so, he would have seen that the amount of regulation that is implemented in other EU countries is quite minimal compared to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hendrick: I speak as one who has served as a Member of the European Parliament, visited all 15 EU member states and legislated in Europe. That we obey European legislation and other countries do not is a myth that is constantly peddled by the Opposition.
    Mrs. Winterton: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I consider him to be part of the problem. If he swans around Europe with his eyes closed, he will come to the House and make such ridiculous statements. Perhaps he should speak to representatives of small, medium-sized and large business and to farmers and hear what they have to say. I assure him that the views that they would express would not chime with his.
    Mr. Hendrick rose—
    Mrs. Winterton: I shall be delighted to give way again to the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not if the purpose is to have a European debate.
    Mrs. Winterton: We shall abide by your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We live to fight another day and in another arena.
    Mr. Steen: I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will not rule me out of order. It is my hon. Friend's submission that the concept embodied in new clause 1 is that, with the effluxion of time, legislation will wane and ultimately die. Is that a process that she would want to be applied to European rules and regulations that have been passed by the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I really do not know how the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) managed until the arrival of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), but I congratulate him on having at last focused on the right target.
    Mrs. Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I favour new clause 1 because, as I see it, it will strengthen the Bill, go some way to tackle the amount of regulation that has been discussed, and exert downward pressure on the amount of regulation that remains on the books. It would provide a good mechanism—one that might not be perfect, but which will strengthen the Bill. I shall now rest my laurels on my case. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments made today and that he will indicate that the Government intend to accept new clause 1.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The need for the new clause becomes stronger all the time because of the accelerating tendency in the Government to pass primary legislation that allows for secondary legislation to be made by order. To my mind, that is an unwelcome trend, which betrays
    552
    a certain sloppiness of thought when Ministers introduce legislation. I think that that is the root of many of our problems.
    Mr. Steen: Is not my hon. Friend really saying that the whole concept of the Bill and the reason why we proposed the new clause are to prevent a system whereby the Chamber is bypassed by secondary legislation, which would extend law-making powers by extending existing rules and regulations and running them parallel to new laws passed by the Chamber?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has far more experience in this field than I do—although I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I have many years' experience in business and have suffered the imposition of regulations—many of which were unnecessary—by successive Governments. I think that the new clause is especially relevant and that my hon. Friend is right.
    If there were greater precision in our legislative process, the need for secondary legislation would not be so great. That precision has been considerably blunted by the Government's tendency increasingly to rush legislation through the House without proper debate. That has been accelerated by the increasing use of Henry VIII clauses—hence the need for new clause 1. To my mind the use of such clauses is even more reprehensible than the ordinary use of secondary legislation, as they permit the alteration of primary legislation by secondary legislation without reference to the House. New clause 1, which deals with reviewing all that regulation, is therefore particularly important.
    I hope that the House will accept that I have a pedigree on the subject. Several years ago, under the excellent auspices of the Industry and Parliament Trust, I was at a lunch at which I sat next to some senior Boots executives, who asked me about the role of a Member of Parliament. I said that a Member's role is to pass legislation only in extremis and, furthermore, to repeal a lot of existing legislation. The new clause will be beneficial as it will force Ministers and civil servants to look at all our legislation, particularly secondary legislation, to see whether it is still necessary or relevant.
    Mr. Bercow: May I encapsulate my hon. Friend's argument in a slightly different form? In reflecting on the merits of new clause 1 and the proposed review mechanisms, does he agree that Opposition Members are guided by the philosophy enunciated by our noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby—to wit, that the business of government is not the government of business?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree entirely. One reason for the fall of the Roman empire is simply that it was shackled by bureaucracy. Had it had regulations such as those proposed in new clause 1, it would have had to review all its legislation and perhaps it would have continued a great deal longer.
    Mr. White rose—
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not really want to go too far down that path. If the hon. Gentleman's remarks are relevant to the 21st century, I shall happily give way. If they pertain to the Roman empire, I will not. Which is it?
    Mr. White: I am curious. The hon. Gentleman is talking about new clause 1; it relates to the Bill, which deals with the removal and reduction of burdens. However, his argument relates to regulations in general. How will his proposals and those of his hon. Friends tackle regulations under the Bill, not the generality of regulations?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient and allow me to develop my argument, I shall come on to that precise area. I shall therefore answer his question in a little while.
    We need to look at the culture of regulation, which stems from the increasing tendency to blame and litigate that emanates from America. We seem to need a regulation to try to cover every aspect of every conceivable thing that could go wrong, instead of leaving it to individuals to make sensible decisions—those individuals are hammered heavily when they transgress general and basic rules—which is a better way to go about our legislative process. I also commend the idea of self-regulation, which can work particularly well for businesses and does not always need the Government regulations that would be reviewed by new clause 1. There could be more self-regulation, for example, in relation to lifts and hoists regulations. That may seem obscure, but it would make businesses regulate themselves.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I need to underline a point that has already been made to the hon. Gentleman in an intervention. New clause 1 relates specifically to clause 1 of the Bill, so it is not in order for him to go wider than that.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, if we did not have regulations in the first place, new clause 1 would not bite and we would not need to pass the Bill. Before moving on, may I cite, in half a sentence, the lifts and hoists regulations, which, by insurance, allow businesses to regulate themselves, so government does not need to interfere in regulations on maintaining lifts and hoists. I commend that principle to the House.
    New clause 1 also bites on the proportionality of regulation, and tackles the issue of regulation going beyond what is necessary to deal with the problem. That is often the case because, rightly, we have a culture of honesty in this country and tend to gild the lily when introducing European and domestic legislation. If, as I said, we left it to individuals to make up their own minds, we would get on a great deal better.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I have already ruled on the matter to which he is now alluding. I must remind him to look at the Bill and remember that new clause 1 relates to clause 1 of the Bill and nothing else.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, clause 1 refers to order-making powers and new clause 1 refers to the need to review those powers. A major proportion of those orders come from Europe, so it is difficult to have a debate on reviewing orders if we cannot discuss the mechanisms of the origins of those orders.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to offer the hon. Gentleman guidance. The powers that are being
    554
    sought in the Bill are ostensibly to reduce regulations. New clause 1 is directed at a qualification or limitation of that. That is all that the hon. Gentleman may allude to.
    Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for further clarification to help my hon. Friends and me? Regulatory reform orders are designed to reform legislation, including reimposing or creating new burdens in circumstances in which Ministers believe that that strikes a fair balance between the public interest and other benefits. Opposition Members believe that new clause I would require review of regulations in circumstances in which additional burdens are created.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was merely trying to advise the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that he has to tie his remarks on the new clause to the clause in the Bill to which it refers. That is the sole point that I am trying to establish. It seems that he—and, on one or two occasions, other hon. Members—have tried to make a more general point than is allowed.
    Mr. Steen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, clause 1 is not about reducing regulations, as was said by the Chair, but about increasing them. Strangely enough, although the Bill is supposed to reduce the number of laws in this country, it will have exactly the opposite effect.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a matter of debate. The House can go only by what said in the text of the Bill, to which I was referring. Of course, the new clause also relates to that text. That is what the debate should be about.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am a little clearer, but I am not totally clear. Clause 1 states:
    "Subject to subsections (3) to (5) and sections 3 to 8, a Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the purpose of reforming legislation".
    The new clause states:
    "Every order made under section I shall include a provision for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year".
    As a lot of directives and regulations from Europe are, to my mind, covered by clause 1 and new clause 1, it is difficult to discuss the amendment without discussing the vast bulk of our order-making powers, more than half of which come from the European Union. If one cannot discuss the mechanisms by which they come from the EU, it is very difficult to have any debate at all about new clause 1.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) presented a compelling argument by saying that it was important to consider both the content of regulations under new clause 1 and the way in which they are implemented in the United Kingdom compared, by inference, with other countries?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made that cogent and powerful point in his speech. It is a secondary point. The first point is how the regulation is framed, whether it be from the domestic Parliament or from Europe and whether it is

    555
    all-encompassing or not. I would prefer regulations to be more general and, when individuals transgress them inadvertently or stupidly, the power of the courts, including the European courts, should be brought down on their heads. Regulations are implemented by the French, Germans and other European countries in a more general way. We tend to implement them in a more specific way.
    The second point is that if regulations are framed in such a way as to be specific, and we enforce them to the letter, we are doubly gilding the lily, in respect of both domestic and European legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is right.
    4 pm
    Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If we are speaking about reviewing sunset clauses, which is the purpose of the new clause, how does my hon. Friend believe that we will accomplish that, bearing in mind the fact that more than 50 per cent. of regulations come from Europe? Can we do what we want to do under the new clause if 50 per cent. of the rules and regulations are outside our powers?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must try to redefine the debate. The terms of new clause 1 relate to regulations that might be created under clause 1 of the Bill, not to the generality of regulations that may exist. I am anxious that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and other hon. Members should confine their remarks to that.
    Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek further clarification, as this is the kernel of our debate this afternoon. May I take it that although it would not be legitimate to dilate upon them, it is in order to animadvert to past directives and regulations which are on the statute book and which affect people in businesses in this country, as justification in the development of the argument for the review mechanism that we commend to the House in new clause 1?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: To animadvert is possible, and in the course of two or more hours, the occasional animadversion might be permissible, but excessive animadversion would be out of order. I hope that that is clear.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Animadversion or not, the gravamen of the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is a useful adjunct to the debate.
    The new clause is necessary because there should be a certain discipline among Ministers and civil servants. When they introduce a regulation under primary legislation, they should consider whether the regulation needs to be permanent, or whether it deals with a temporary problem that will pass as a result of new technologies.
    Mr. Steen: We are on to an important point, and I would not like my hon. Friend to leave it without further consideration. Many of the rules and regulations coming out of the House apply to social services, supplementary benefits and so on. They must constantly be repealed and
    556
    replaced. Under the new clause, they would, through the passage of time, end without the need for further legislation.
    Mr. White: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) trying to make up for the fact that he missed the Deregulation Committee and the Standing Committee?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) knows that that is a point for debate, not a point of order—
    Mr. Ian Stewart: It is a point of fact.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tolerated quite sufficient in the way of sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). I hope that he will now maintain a decorous silence.
    Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Eccles—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) would be better advised to leave me to decide on rules of order.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I had intended to make a five-minute speech, but I have been speaking for almost a quarter of an hour. I shall try to keep my remarks concise and in order, for which I am sure you would commend me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) brings me to my next point, which concerns the culture among civil servants and Ministers with regard to the making of orders. The new clause will cause them to consider whether the orders that they propose to introduce are of a long-term or a short-term nature. Including a sunset clause in a regulation introduced under clause 1 will make everyone think hard whether the order needs to be introduced in the first place, and whether it should be reviewed and revoked after five years.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes cites the example of social security legislation. The other area in which orders are continually made and remade is criminal justice legislation. We seem to have a criminal justice Bill in the House almost every year, and certainly every other year, and many such Bills contain order-making powers. The House is often required to alter what it has done in the past, by amending primary legislation.
    If everyone who introduces legislation would think more carefully about it before they introduced it, which would be the impact of new clause 1, it would do us all a huge favour. Who knows?—perhaps we would not need to sit so many days in Parliament, because we would introduce fewer regulations, have fewer Committees considering statutory instruments, and fewer debates on the Floor of the House. That would be a good day for everyone.
    Secondary legislation is introduced upstairs, sometimes by way of affirmative procedure and sometimes by way of negative procedure. There seems no good reason why a particular set of regulations should be introduced under the affirmative or the negative procedure. By ensuring that

    557
    the regulations were reviewed, the new clause would require Ministers to make it clear why it was necessary to introduce them under the negative procedure.
    As you know from your many years in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is much more difficult to overturn secondary legislation made by negative resolution. Secondary legislation made by affirmative resolution can be debated and amendments can be tabled, whereas that is not the case under the negative resolution procedure. Under the latter, it is not possible to introduce amendments; it is simply a matter of voting for or against the statutory instrument in question.
    When the Government have as large a majority as the present Government have, the new clause becomes even more important. It prevents an overbearing Executive from introducing regulations that subsequently turn out to be faulty. Democracy is about trying to introduce better legislation and better regulations.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He heard our hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) speak about the need for a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken as part of the review of regulations. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that so many statutory instruments effectively give the Secretary of State a blank cheque to impose levels of fines, and to increase or decrease the power of a regulation, thus making a cost-benefit analysis so much more difficult, precisely because of the imprecision of the statutory instruments?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. I always thought that it was enshrined in legislation, but perhaps it was merely a convention of the House, that when a Bill—primary legislation—was introduced, its cost implications had to be stated. That is rarely the case with orders—statutory instruments that we discuss upstairs. Almost always, the Opposition of the day have to probe the Government about the cost implications. That is where the gravamen of the new clause lies. If people have to decide whether an order should remain in place five years after it was introduced, circumstances may have changed considerably, and they will have to think in terms not only of risk assessment, but of cost-benefit analysis.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend reminds me of a further reason and justification for our insistence on the new clause. He rightly referred to statutory instrument Committees. Will he confirm, drawing on his personal experience as a member of the Opposition Whips Office, that it is becoming increasingly common in Standing Committees on delegated legislation for the Minister winding up the 90-minute debate deliberately and calculatedly to refrain from answering the questions asked by the principal Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and simply and limply to say, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but will he approve the measure in the meantime?"
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with new clause 1, either.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: One of the reasons why the new clause is necessary is the need for a cost-benefit analysis.
    558
    It is often difficult to obtain from any Government source information about the cost of a particular measure. The new clause would require a report to be prepared at the end of five years, and I hope that that report would include a cost-benefit analysis. If it does not, I do not see how a proper assessment can be made about whether an order should remain in force.
    Although cost-benefit analyses have an important role, an even bigger part is played by risk analysis. Orders and regulations are often introduced to try to prevent a particular disaster or risk. A risk analysis is, therefore, important to us as legislators and also to the public, who will want to see that we are introducing good legislation. Politicians are often not very good at putting orders in perspective. BSE is a good example. The previous Government were criticised for not implementing properly the regulations that the Labour Government drafted in 1979. However, we were implementing the regulations in accordance with the best scientific evidence that was available at the time. Scientific evidence often has to be interpreted on a risk-analysis basis. A human has less chance of catching Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from a cow with BSE than he has of being killed by lightning.
    Perhaps regulations should more often be reviewed on the basis of risk analysis. To put such analysis in context, politicians must often distil difficult and complex arguments into relatively simple concepts, so that the public can understand what we are doing. If the public do not understand what regulations seek to achieve, but are suddenly inadvertently caught out by them, we will, in my terms, have introduced bad regulations. Those are precisely the regulations that should be dealt with by the new clause.
    Mr. Lansley: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the new clause would require a review to be made in relation to the statement required by clause 6. It would, therefore, cover a post facto review of costs and benefits. He makes an important point, as clause 6 does not require any risk assessment to be made in relation to regulatory reform orders. Interestingly, however, one of the five consultation papers issued in anticipation of provisions in respect of the letting of business premises under section 57 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 includes a risk assessment, although that requirement is not set out in the Bill and the other four consultation papers do not refer to it.
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a great de al of experience in these matters, for raising that issue. His comments reinforce the points that I am making. Not only do we need to include a risk analysis in the quinquennial review, but we need to ensure that it is presented in terms that ordinary members of the public can understand. It seems to me that regulations are often drafted in such convoluted terms that it is difficult for anybody except a lawyer to interpret their precise meaning. That is another reason why we need the new clause. The regulations should be drafted in terms that ensure that they are effective. If they are seen not to be effective, that is a very good reason why they should be reviewed after five years.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. James Gray rose—
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.
    Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the main merits of the periodic review, which will occur at five-year intervals, is not only that we can reconsider the policy content of the measure in question, but that we will have the opportunity, to paraphrase the late, great Sir Winston Churchill, to delete language up with which we should not be obliged to put?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that it was George Bernard Shaw who said that genius is simplicity and that any fool can make things complicated. If we, as legislators, bore that maxim in mind more often, we might produce better legislation. For example, as the tax rewrite Committee parallels the Select Committee on Deregulation, could not that principle be applied more broadly to regulations? One of the factors that should be borne in mind in respect of the quinquennial report is whether the regulation is effective in terms of being regularly understood and sensibly drafted. If we can ensure such effectiveness, we will all be doing a better job.
    Mr. Gray: I have been following my hon. Friend's comments with great care. He makes a strong point, but I fear that he cited a poor example by speaking about BSE and the CJD deaths. If the new clause were implemented, the regulation in question would be subject to five-year review. However, many of the tens of thousands of regulations that are in place today, many "up with which we shall not put", affect only minute areas of life and could be left out of the statute book altogether. Should it not be those regulations that fall at the end of the five-year review, rather than those that affect catastrophically important matters?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If I may say so, my hon. Friend makes a different point. My first point was that scientific evidence and technology move on. We live in a world in which change is occurring at an increasing pace. I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield to speak about e-commerce—a theme that I want to develop in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) makes a different point. The fact that we seem to make regulations that affect every aspect of people's lives is important People's morals, attitudes and life styles can change enormously in five years. Thus what is appropriate now might not be seen to be appropriate in five years' time. That is an especially good reason for introducing the new clause.
    Finally, I should like to speak about technological change. I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield to speak about e-commerce. I believe that, in respect of a raft of financial and trade legislation, e-commerce will rapidly change the way in which we do business. The movement around the world of electronic information and hundreds of millions—or even billions—of pounds at the touch of a button will produce a need for regulatory authorities to be very much quicker on their feet.
    560
    They will have to think much more quickly about existing regulations and whether they need to be changed. That, too, makes the case for new clause 1. Nowadays, a transaction can take place in one country and be electronically billed in one currency to a second country with a different currency; it can then be settled in a third country and delivered in a fourth country. That makes regulation difficult. Our patterns of trade are changing, and that makes the need for a quinquennial review even greater.
    A culture of blame and litigation is growing in this country; that unfortunate trend stems from the United States of America. We should resist it. The Bill goes a long way, but not all the way, towards that. It would be greatly improved by new clause 1, and I hope that the Minister will provide a cogent and detailed response.
    Mr. Bercow: It is a delight even at this late stage to contribute to the debate. I shall begin by placing my remarks in context. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) opened the debate with skill and reason. He was followed in characteristically thoughtful fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is sadly no longer in his place. He was a distinguished member of the previous Government, and he reminded us of their approach to such matters. His speech was followed by a powerful oration from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who was duly succeeded by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
    I shall not indulge in any personal asides that would cause your brow to furrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that, passionate opponent of regulation though I am, I do not object to being frequently regulated—the regulation is periodically reviewed—by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. She made the case in a formidable fashion, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
    I regret the tone of Labour Members' speeches. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) knows that I hold him in considerable affection and esteem, but there was much belated and retrospective special pleading from Labour Members. They did not focus on the justice of the case and the sequence of historical events that led to the growing clamour for a review mechanism as proposed in new clause 1. They appeared to wish to dam it simply by referring to the work of the Deregulation Committee. However, that Committee's perceived feebleness, inadequacy and comatose deliberations partly led to the current troubling position. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire proposed new clause 1, about which I have much to say. Before I do that, I give way to my senior colleague.
    Mr. Steen: As a member of the comatose Deregulation Committee, I agree with my hon. Friend's epithets whole-heartedly. I am sure that he realises that the reason for our new clauses is well illustrated by the Committee's behaviour. Only one regulation has been repealed this year, and only one last year. Yet more than 2,500 new regulations were introduced by statutory instrument this year. Our case is made.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point with which I agree. I am getting old and my memory is not what it was, but I cannot recall whether he was present for Scottish questions earlier this week.
    Mr. Steen: I was not.
    Mr. Bercow: I am sure that my hon. Friend had pressing business elsewhere. However, had he been present, he would have heard a brief exchange between the Secretary of State for Scotland and me. That exchange was not carried on all the news bulletins, but it was significant because I argued that the massive increase in regulation justified a review mechanism and a reconsideration of the wholly inadequate approach that the Government have adopted thus far. By contrast, the right hon. Lady, who oozed smug complacency—I apologise for the serious understatement of which I am guilty—believed that the Government's record was fine, that we had nothing of which to complain, and that business was queueing up to congratulate the Government on the merits of their policies. That is not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has a long-standing background in small business, knows well.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has not been in the House as long as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not to be lured by his wiles into moving away from new clause 1, which is the focus of the debate and specifically relates to the regulations in clause 1?
    Mr. Bercow: I shall not be lured by the wiles of any hon. Member, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I stress that I am always and unfailingly constrained and guided by the wisdom that you generously volunteer in a paternal fashion towards me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I worry about your furrowed brow, so I shall not test your patience with a lengthy dilation on the philosophical background to the case for new clause 1.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, brilliant though he is, is known for a certain restraint, self-effacement and reluctance loudly to speak up for his point of view or his record. I therefore hope that he will not mind if I do it for him. He has a strong background in such matters, not least through his experiences as deputy director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. He was a distinguished occupant of that post. He knows that the authentic voices of British business genuinely desire deregulation and review of the existing encumbrance of regulation, which damages our companies. I shall consider that important subject later, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred, not entirely accurately, to the stance of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, and I wish to explain briefly that the Opposition have three guiding lights or mentors on new clause 1.
    No debate on regulation, deregulation, enterprise or the development of entrepreneurial potential would be complete without reference to Dr. Ludwig Erhard, the post-war Chancellor of Germany. He first devised the idea of a deregulatory mechanism and the need to apply it across the board to administrative imposts and burdens,
    562
    which crushed small businesses. He argued that there should be an on-going review of the burden of regulation on companies in his country.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes the point that new clause 1 will apply prospectively to all new regulations. Most 1egislation is prospective. On the Erhard principle, does he believe that the new clause should also be retrospective and apply to all existing regulations?
    Mr. Bercow: I certainly do. I am glad that my hon. Friend and I have a symbiotic relationship. He correctly anticipates a point on which I intend to dilate. There is good reason to do that, simply in the terms that the late Dr. Erhard articulated. I do not want to take his name in vain because he is not a Member of Parliament; he is sadly no longer with us and therefore in no position to speak for himself. However, it is legitimate to refer to the historical record. As a student of history, my hon. Friend will know that Dr. Erhard talked of the urgent need for "a bonfire of controls". He will know also, as you will testify, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the full majesty and authority of the Chair, that it is difficult—indeed, thus far I think that it would have been considered impossible—to apply a bonfire to things that do not yet exist. It is eminently impossible, of course, to apply a bonfire to things that exist but of which one wishes to be rid.
    I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would like to argue—I have taken note of your earlier strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that new clause 1, relating as it does to regulatory reform orders and the review thereof, has the potential to apply to a number of the burdens that are now on the statute book and that are costing British businesses dearly, of which more anon. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is becoming itchy.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with new clause 1. We are not having a stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be directed to the new clause. The debate has continued for almost three hours, and there is a danger that repetition will creep in. My ear will be ever more attuned to it.
    Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noted that guidance and I assure you that I will be bound by it. I do not want to suffer a grisly fate.
    Mr. Steen: I do not want to suffer a grisly fate either, but I want to get to the bottom of a matter that troubles me, as it should the whole House. How does my hon. Friend think that the new clause would work with European regulations that are passed by the House? They comprise more than 50 per cent. of the rules and regulations that apply in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bercow: That is an important point, to which I want to turn. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me and not regard it as impolite if I do not do so immediately. There is a reason for it, which is that there is an attempted chronology to my speech. There is a sequence of events and arguments through which I want to take the House. I have not yet reached his point but I promise that I shall make my best endeavours to do so. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not, through their interventions, seek to prevent me from adumbrating the three inspirations for the new clause.

    563
    I have mentioned Dr. Erhard, and I need to say no more about him. However, it is legitimate in this context to say that one of the people to inspire new clause 1 was Walter Lippmann, who was a regular commentator on this subject. It was he who said that in a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men, it administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs. He should, of course, have referred also to women, but the gravamen—to quote my hon. Friend. the Member for Cotswold—of his argument was sound. That is to say, as Lord Lawson of Blaby has regularly said, that the business of government is not the government of business. The new clause derives inspiration from those two individuals and from Baroness Thatcher.
    I turn to the Government's stance. The Bill is of great importance and the new clause, which seeks to improve it, is of inestimable value. In these circumstances—I say this with no disrespect to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office—it is disappointing that we are not graced with the presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose responsibilities include such matters She has a deep background in the Department of Trade and Industry. She sidled into the Chamber in ghostly fashion earlier but has now left it. That is a pity, but I will say no more about it.
    There is a basic difference—it informs the entirety of our debate so far—between the Government's attitude to the new clause and the attitude that has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. It is a divide which legitimately, but from the opposite point of view, the hon. Member for Eccles picked up. It was dwelt upon also by my parliamentary next door neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). They are saying that Conservative Members are somehow guilty of failing properly to distinguish between the process of regulation on the one hand and its content on the other.
    Indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East accused me personally of being guilty of that confusion. I explained clearly, so as to brook of no contradiction, that I was not in any way confused and that I am critical both of the Government's process and procedure in relation to regulation and of much, though not all, of the content of the regulations that they have rammed through the House since 1 May 1997.
    The hon. Member for Eccles was keen to argue that all that was necessary was to look from time to time at the procedure whereby a regulatory reform order had been implemented. I fundamentally disagree, and I shall explain why. However, I shall not do so before I have heard the pearls of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the process and content of legislation but its enforcement that determines how hard it bites on the individual or on industry? For example, if the regulatory authority goes looking for people who transgress, that is much more rigorous enforcement than merely waiting for transgression to occur.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see no connection between that point and new clause 1. I insist that the hon. Gentleman sticks strictly to new clause 1, otherwise I may have to resort to the Standing Orders.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not be tempted down the wrong path. I shall stick to new clause 1.
    It is not a question only of process, but of content. It is precisely because we believe that Parliament can periodically review—and take a different view—on the merits of regulation that we argue for new clause 1. It is a direct response on our part to the position that was explained by Lord Falconer of Thoroton in the other place. I can succinctly encapsulate the difference between us and the Government on the new clause.
    Lord Falconer is on record in the 10th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, in relation to the Bill, on page 6 at paragraph 1, as saying:
    "I undertake that that report"
    that is the report that he is saying should be published every three years—
    "will cover the operation of the order-making process and any associated constitutional and procedural issues."
    In fairness to Lord Falconer, he does not leave the matter there—this is the root of our dissatisfaction with him—but explains:
    "I do not think that it would be right for such reports to reopen matters of policy which had been debated fully during the consultation, scrutiny and approval stage of the order-making process."
    I think that he is completely wrong about that. If a Government have an idea—perhaps in relation to matters of regulation—they may issue a Green Paper or a White Paper and there may be a wide-ranging debate, with perhaps exchanges on the Floor of the House. Eventually the Government of the day may decide to introduce legislation of a regulatory character. Some of it will be introduced as secondary legislation, possibly even involving the negative procedure to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I so strenuously object.
    Lord Falconer's view is that once that is done, the only issue left to consider is whether the procedural requirements of the initial statute that we passed have been complied with in full. I do not accept that. Of course it is right that we should consider whether the procedural requirements and the spirit of Parliament in the initial enactment have been honoured. However, we should be prepared to do more than that, otherwise we are in a sense—I do not want to make a Second Reading point—flouting the very principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which is that Parliament should have an opportunity from time to time to return to a point. In relation to new clause 1—on which I am very focused, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Government are guilty of an ostrich-like mentality. They are burying their head in the sand, and failing adequately, if at all, to listen to the legitimate voices of criticism of their policies. That is disappointing.
    We should not need new clause 1, but we do. Why do I say that we should not need it? This is directly relevant to the potential of, as well as the need for, the new clause. In April 1997, in "Equipping Britain for the Future", Labour's business manifesto, the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), said:
    "We will not impose burdensome regulations on business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."

    565
    Nineteen months later, on 25 November 1998, in one of his final shots as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said to the House:
    "we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
    The problem with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as you, with your acuity will readily discern—is that there is a massive contrast between the rhetoric and the reality. If that initial pledge had been honoured, we would not be debating this Bill this afternoon. We would probably be doing something else. For certain, we would not be debating the merits or otherwise of new clause 1.
    The position that the Government take is not commended by, or even acceptable to, the representatives of business. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you are an exceptionally experienced parliamentarian, that it is popular sport for Members of Parliament of all political parties to invoke third-party support to back up their arguments. My right hon. and hon. Friends do it, and Labour right hon. and hon. Members do it. I find it irritating and irksome, but it is not uncommon for members of the Government to quote business spokesmen in support of their economic and industrial policies.
    In relation to new clause 1, I think that I am entitled to quote some support. I have already referred to the distinguished commercial lineage of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. At least as pertinent for the purposes of our debate is the stance of the current leadership of the British Chambers of Commerce. I have what might be described as news hot off the press for the purposes of our exchanges today. I had a conversation with the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce on this matter on the Sunday before last. It was at 7 am and we were in the green room in readiness for interviews on "The Sunday Programme" with Mr. Alastair Stewart.
    I said to the director general, Mr. Chris Humphries, whom I hold in high regard, "It is good to meet you. You are probably aware that we will soon debate the review mechanism for regulatory reform orders, and our advocacy of new clause 1. You might also be aware that, on 8 March last year, in a debate on the regulatory business, I prayed you in aid." I am not apologetic about that, because what he said—among other things that he has said since—was that despite their rhetoric, the Government had dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small businesses' competitiveness.
    Mr. Humphries made that statement on 20 January last year. More than 14 months on, there has been no material improvement; if anything, there has been a regression. Further regulations have been introduced; further statutory instruments have been rammed through the House; and further businesses have either gone bust as a consequence of regulation—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going way beyond the terms of new clause 1. Ritualistic reference to it every now and again is not a substitute for debating it. The points that he is making are much wider than, and not appropriate to, this debate. I say that for the last time.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be guided by you.
    Earlier in my brief remarks, I suggested, in agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, that new clause 1 could and should apply to existing regulation. That is fundamental to our debate. Of course we are concerned to minimise future burdens, but we are informed in our views, guided in our assumptions and encouraged in our arguments by our assessment of what has already taken place.
    I think that I remember your helpful distinction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following a point of order from me, between dilation and animadversion. I know that animadversion is all that I shall be permitted, and that is all that I seek from you. However, it is fundamental to why I believe in the new clause and why I have told a number of constituents this week that I intended to speak in support of it. Many existing regulations, whatever their purpose, and whatever their impact—so far as their immediate beneficiaries are concerned—are implemented in such a way as to inconvenience, burden and make less competitive our companies.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been over this many times, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the new clause relates to the regulations that may or may not be made under clause 1. I do not wish to hear him go beyond that.
    Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will be guided by that.
    However, this is obviously a matter of considerable dispute. I had a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about it. It is his view, as shadow spokesman for Cabinet Office matters and the parent of the new clause, that if it were passed by the House, it would be capable of rolling back the frontiers of a number of existing regulations. That is all that I have in mind to say on that. I was talking about some of the regulations that have regularly been debated in the House.
    Mr. Gray: You have correctly pulled my hon. Friend up once or twice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for talking about previous regulations. However, does he agree that the only way to see the true value of new clause 1, and understand why it is so essential that it should form part of the Bill, is by referring to previous regulation of one sort or another—in business, agriculture, or other areas—that would have fallen off the edge and so no longer have borne down on our people had new clause 1 existed at the time? It is only by using such regulations as an example that—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is inadvertently overruling the ruling that I have given.
    Mr. Gray: No.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In which case, he has not heard it and I will repeat it. This debate, which is a narrow debate despite its length, has to focus on the relevance of new clause 1 to clause 1. This cannot be a general debate about regulations.
    Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by which I stick. I simply

    567
    make the point that one of the reasons for believing that we need to be better protected in the future than we have been in the past is that we rue that past experience. That is a point about which I have regularly expatiated, not least in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a variety of forums. I will not talk about the parental leave directive, because you will not permit it, and it seems that I am not to be permitted to talk about the merits or demerits of the Part-time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Let me say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that I will not talk about them. However, they are uppermost in my mind when I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that I believe that the new clause makes good sense.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: When I was making my speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to clause 6, which is mentioned in new clause 1. Clause 6(2)(a) refers to
    "the burdens which the existing law affected by the proposals has the effect of imposing".
    Does my hon. Friend agree that every new regulation has the incremental effect of imposing extra burdens?
    Mr. Bercow: That is certainly true. I do not know whether we are about to have what is described in the parlance of basketball as a time-out, in which consideration of the position can be undertaken, but in the interim, I will continue—
    Mr. Lansley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Bercow: I will—very conveniently.
    Mr. Lansley: As my hon. Friend referred to advice that I may have given him about the uses new clause 1, let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that its purpose is to require a review by reference to the matters set out in a statement laid under clause 6(2) of regulatory reform orders. As you have quite rightly directed us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that does not mean that we can discuss regulation willy-nilly, but only those regulations that might be affected by regulatory reform orders made under this legislation. The Government have helpfully set out 51 possible measures, and there may be others, but we cannot discuss the merits of every regulation.
    Mr. Bercow: I offer my hon. Friend the bouquet that that is helpful, although I couple it with the brickbat that it is only partly helpful. I will not talk about previous regulations because that, apparently, is not in order. However, subject to your guidance and authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I am entitled to say that the representatives of business have been arguing for a reduction in the regulatory burden and for a regular and consistent review of imposts ever since the Government took office. I am not making a narrow and partisan point. You know that I am neither narrow nor partisan, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage referred earlier to what happened under the previous Government. I intend no discourtesy to someone who is very senior, distinguished, important, respected, influential and busy, with many commitments and a very full diary—namely my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley
    568
    (Mr. Heseltine)—but he did not come up with the review mechanism proposal that has wisely occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. If he had done, we might not have needed to debate this today. However, I think that I am entitled to point out, as in business questions earlier today I had occasion to, that representative groups for British business want such policies to be introduced. Whatever they think about the Government's attitude on other matters, whatever their view about the European single currency or late payment of commercial debt and interest charged thereon, they are of one mind about the need to tackle the burgeoning and damaging phenomenon of over-regulation. The British Chambers of Commerce has called for the introduction of a review mechanism. That is what the new clause would do.
    We should not overstate the case. We in politics are given to exaggerated ambition and no little rhetorical hyperbole. I do not indulge in it myself, but I am conscious that others do. It is not that I think that as a result of the introduction of the review mechanism proposed in new clause 1 the situation would be perfect. The new clause is not a panacea. It is an incremental measure; indeed, the president of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr. Madsen Pirie, would describe it as a micro-incrementalist measure. It does not take a holistic view and it certainly does not take a wildly radical view. It is rather piecemeal; it is not a provision for sunset clauses, which I originally commended to the House in my ten-minute Bill on 27 April 1999.
    I do not want to open up a division with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on this subject, because we are both on the Conservative Front Bench. I am a very junior spoke—a minor cog in the wheel—whereas he is a senior and celebrated member of the shadow Cabinet. However, we both sing from the same hymn sheet. I think that he believes that it is better to have half a cake than no cake at all. He is taking a cautious, reasonable, tactical approach to a long-standing problem.
    In trying to devise solutions to the problem of the sea of regulation confronted by business, we have to run very fast to stand still. That point was made in a different context by my noble Friend Lord Biffen in relation to public expenditure. The same difficulty in bearing down on existing spending totals applies to regulations. There is a natural leviathan tendency in government. Ministerial advisers are usually keen on more regulation, direction and legislation, for it is, in a sense, their very raison d'être—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. I have suggested to him on a number of occasions that he has been engaged in irrelevance. I now directly invoke Standing Order No. 42, to remind him and the House that any hon. Member who persists in irrelevance may be required to discontinue his speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not oblige me to go down that path.
    Mr. Bercow: I have no desire to do so, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for showing me the yellow card rather than the red. I have no intention of courting further disfavour.
    Mr. Lansley: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to assure him that our views on sunset clauses are not

    569
    remotely inconsistent. If regulatory reform orders have a substantial deregulatory purpose, we would not want to invoke a sunset clause simply to disapply them after a period of time, as we would want the deregulatory purpose to be sustained. However, orders may be introduced that impose new burdens, and the expected benefits may not flow from them. Under those circumstances, does he agree that our deregulatory purpose would be best achieved by the new clause, which would allow them to be stopped when that happened?
    Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree, and my hon. Friend's point makes good sense. There is therefore no difference between our views.
    My final category of remarks relates to whether the review mechanism in new clause 1 applies to future regulation and legislation flowing from the European Union. It is important to clarify that. I have no interest in debating the European Union. I have pronounced on that topic often and occasionally at length.
    The House must consider two crucial enabling devices relevant to the debate—article 3(b), on subsidiarity, of the Maastricht treaty, and the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which is an annexe to the treaty of Amsterdam. We should hear more about them.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly touches on a point mentioned previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). It seems to me that EU legislation that has direct effect would not be susceptible to regulatory reform orders, so the new clause would not apply. However, other EU measures require domestic legislation in this House. Does my hon. Friend agree that they could be implemented by regulatory reform order, in some circumstances, and so be subject to the new clause?
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I like to make short speeches, and I have now concluded this one.
    Mr. Steen: I could not face incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House finds what I have to say helpful: if not, I shall not continue. However, in the past I have found that the House finds the odd observation helpful.
    My concern has always been the number of rules and regulations passed by the House. I have been a Member of Parliament for very nearly as long as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that the House exists to pass more rules, regulations and laws. A real deregulatory process would mean that hon. Members did not have to spend so much time in the House. When Britain had an empire, the House did not have to sit nearly as long.
    5 Pm
    We now have a very complicated society with an increasing number of rules and regulations. We are making more laws and sitting longer. The purpose of new clause 1, as I understand it, is to reduce the amount of legislation on the statute book by providing that after five, four or three years, legislation can be removed from the statute book. I cannot understand why anyone would
    570
    oppose that concept. Nor can I understand why right hon. or hon. Members would not want there to be less legislation, unless they had concluded that its removal would put various sections of society at risk and that more laws meant increased safety, hygiene and security. Despite the fact that we have passed a great deal of legislation on hygiene, the incidence of health epidemics such as BSE and foot and mouth disease has increased. Indeed, there seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of legislation that we pass on hygiene and the incidence of sickness, ill-health and food poisoning.
    I am making a perfectly reasonable speech, which I hope the Minister will respond to in his reply to the debate, if he gets the chance to speak. I am very keen on sunset clauses and reviews simply because they might reduce the amount of legislation that remains on the statute book. When the Conservatives were in office, we talked about deregulation, which meant fewer laws. We are now talking about reducing legislation by the effluxion of time.
    Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Steen: If it is a useful point.
    Mr. Cash: I hope that it is. It may interest my hon. Friend to know that I too wish to speak in the debate because in 1984, within a few months of being elected, I introduced the Small Business Bill, which dealt specifically with the reduction of legislation, as my hon. Friend may recall. He may even have been a signatory to it. Furthermore, I have even written a pamphlet on the subject, on which I can dilate at great length.
    Mr. Steen: There are very few subjects on which my hon. Friend has not written a pamphlet. I am delighted that he is here today and that he hopes to contribute to the debate. I shall make a short speech. I am not interested in extending the debate because I think that all the points have been covered from every possible angle, but I am concerned about why the Government are not in favour of new clause 1, which would reduce the amount of time, effort and energy that we devote to debating and passing legislation. I should have thought that most right hon. and hon. Members would like more time away from this place, but it seems that Labour Members would like to be here day and night, seven days a week, producing more and more legislation. The new clause is about less legislation.
    I make one simple point that I have made before. I have sat on the Deregulation Committee, and for four or five years I chaired the Conservative Back-Bench committee that tried to reduce the amount of rules and regulation by secondary legislation, but the new clause is much cleverer. As I understand it, it proposes to write into primary legislation a means of getting rid of legislation if it is no longer relevant. That is an advanced and progressive way of thinking. Under the Bill as it stands, the Government would have to find parliamentary time to cancel a rule or regulation that they had passed either on the Floor of the House or through secondary legislation. I can see that hon. Members are listening to what I am saying and I am quite sure that I am striking a chord with them, but I would love to give way to the Minister if he could tell me why I have got it wrong.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has got one simple fact wrong. The Labour Government want to spend less and less time in Parliament, producing more and more regulation. Would not it be better to spend less time in the House and produce less legislation?
    Mr. Steen: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; that is what I should like to do. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, which passes thousands of rules and regulations. I want those to be reviewed every five years; otherwise, we shall have even more books of legislation that someone will have to repeal—probably us, when we return to government.
    The new clause is a sensible provision that any reasonable person would want to support. I am not making a party political point; I do not want to extend the debate—heaven forbid! However, after listening to it for several hours, I am at a loss to understand why the Government have set their mind against a progressive, radical, thoughtful, attractive and helpful provision and why they want to allow the Bill to be passed without amendment. It would allow the Government to keep all the existing rules and regulations and extend them—a type of gold-plating—without primary legislation.
    The Bill is a device that is completely contrary to the new clause. It will allow the Government to multiply rules and regulations with ease; if 2,500 rules and regulations a year are introduced by Europe, the Government can turn them into 50,000—a nightmare progression. I do not say that the Government would want to do that, but the measure will give them that power.
    I want less Government intervention. The new clause will reduce the amount of Government intervention in our lives. It will free us from the bureaucracy and official enforcement that control our lives. That is where the difference lies. The Bill would extend the powers of the state; the Opposition's new clause would reduce the powers of the state. I do not know whether that point is helpful, but I think that it is the essence of the new clause. It is amazing that I could make it so forcefully in only nine minutes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will also have the opportunity to speak.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: I had not intended to speak in the debate—I had planned only to listen carefully to the arguments. Before I became a Member of the House, I was in business and travelled widely around the world, and I have to find a country that was regulated to prosperity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on his excellent, short and pithy comments which went to the nub of the debate.
    Some Members believe that the state is a real agent for good, while others think that more good comes from individuals. I was especially struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick), which contrasted completely with my experience both outside the House and as an MP. I have received so much correspondence from businesses worn down by excessive regulation that I think that the new clause will benefit many businesses—especially small ones that cannot cope with regulation.
    Much regulation and legislation is drawn up with the best intentions, but it is never subsequently reviewed. Despite the comments of the hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of many of my business constituents, that legislation is gold-plated.
    572
    We should not go too far into the origins of legislation, but I want to draw the attention of the House to one point. On one day, 1 November last year, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny—on which I served with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—passed 78 documents within two minutes of the beginning of our meeting. With the best will in the world, we could not have gone into the intricacies of how that legislation would bear down on businesses that are trying to be competitive and make a living.
    Specific practical examples have been missing from the debate. If you will bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will cite two examples—one that has happened and one that may—of legislation that would benefit from new clause 1. It would ensure that there was a mechanism retrospectively to assess the impact of legislation and improve it. The first example is the regulation on integrated pollution prevention and control, which claims to be following European Community directive 96/61. When that came into force, the National Farmers Union said that
    "for practical purposes, most mistakes or unintended consequences cannot be remedied."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue on that line as it is a Second Reading point. He must confine his remarks to new clause 1, which is in turn confined not to regulations made elsewhere or in the past but to those that could be made under clause 1.
    Mr. Paterson: I listened carefully to your strictures to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) among others, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be careful to cite two examples that show how new clause 1 could help, as the debate has been general. As I understand it, new clause 1 relates to clause 6(2), which refers to
    "burdens which the existing law affected by the proposals has the effect of imposing".
    I am not test to tempt your patience, but I am trying to give a practical example that shows that, by agreeing new clause 1, we would improve existing legislation that is causing trouble.
    The NFU said that most mistakes or unintended consequences could not be remedied. New clause 1 would offer a mechanism for remedy. The NFU continued:
    "The Commission's zealous attitude towards compliance with the letter of the law means that the financial consequences of mistakes or unintended consequences from European environmental legislation tend to fully impact on the affected sectors."
    If new clause 1 is added to the Bill, that lacuna about which the NFU is concerned could be corrected. The NFU continued:
    "In combination with UK legislation requiring the costs of regulation to be fully recovered from industry, this means that in the agricultural sector farmers bear the full financial consequences of deficiencies in the drafting of European environmental legislation."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) picked up on that point.
    I am trying to be practical by mentioning a real case. New clause 1 would enable us to improve and review that IPPC legislation and assess the costs to the agriculture

    573
    sector. That point was brought home again to me by a business that wrote to me to make four brief points. The letter reads:
    "My main concerns are … Cost of registration and ongoing fees being completely out of line with current agricultural cost."
    Surely new clause 1 would tackle the worries on that point.
    The second point—this falls absolutely within the remit of new clause 1—that is made in the letter is:
    "Nobody can tell me what … impact this will have on my business bearing in mind we are meeting all current environmental legislation."
    Those lines alone justify the new clause. The person running that business is complying with all the current legislation. It is a successful business, but it is having difficulty competing with competitors here and abroad. No one can say what that important legislation will do to the business. The new clause would provide a mechanism, although it might not come in time. My worry is the five-year time limit. Many regulations have an impact within the first couple of years.
    The third point that is made in the letter is about the cost of legislation. It states:
    "The expected cost to our business at current rates will be approximately £100,000 registration fee and £40,000 annually thereafter."
    That is a substantial cost to a small farm business. New clause 1 would bring transparency to the process. Instead of pushing the legislation through, as happens at present, hoping that business gets on with it, and then reading some worrying stories in the press a few months down the line, we would at least have a chance to rethink. I cannot see how any sane person can oppose that.
    We need more business, more enterprises and more activity, especially when there are such problems in agriculture. The problems were bad enough before the foot and mouth outbreak, but they are extreme at the moment. There is a depressed, crushed feeling among many of my constituents, who believe that there is no escape from regulation. They write letters to me; I can speak and vote in the House. but there is no comeback when regulations are passed. New clause 1 would give them hope, although I am concerned about the five-year gap. I should like the review to take place more frequently.
    Mr. Steen: Every year.
    Mr. Paterson: We should bear in mind the fact that the current directory of European legislation is 1,278 pages long, so the burden of carrying out the review every year would be too great; it would be impractical. However, my hon. Friend is on the right lines because the worry is that much of the new legislation introduced is not properly scrutinised and the consequences are not thought through.
    5.15 pm
    I should like to cite one more case, but I think that, sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will tell us that new clause 1 will not cover it. It is the very interesting case of a
    574
    regulation. As all hon. Members will know, one of the worries in agriculture in recent years has been the closure of small abattoirs; some of the problems of foot and mouth have been caused by the excessive movement of beasts around the country to large units. The general consensus is that small is good in that sector, yet we have seen the wholesale devastation of the sector, mostly by regulation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going far too far. I can anticipate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), by saying that new clause 1 applies only to regulations introduced under clause 1. I have allowed the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) to cite some illustrative examples, but he has now had his ration of them.
    Mr. Paterson: I am making a desperately serious point. The measure that I shall mention will have a dramatic impact on many small businesses.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the ruling that I have given. He has, regrettably, heard me more than once, but the fact is that I have to try to focus the debate on the matter before the House. New clause 1 relates to regulations introduced under clause 1. He cannot talk about any regulation that might exist on the statute book at present. The debate is on whether it would be right to apply new clause I to clause 1.
    Mr. Paterson: I was about the mention the regulation. I should very much like to know whether new clause 1 would encompass the regulation, but I have not had time to say what it is.
    Mr. Lansley: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Government have already referred to some of the purposes for which they wish to introduce regulatory reform orders. The Ministry of Apiculture, Fisheries and Food wishes to introduce a regulatory reform order to extend the powers of the Meat and Livestock Commission. It is perfectly possible, of course, for a regulatory reform order to be introduced that would not only extend those powers, but impact directly on the Meat Hygiene Service. As my hon. Friend will remember, we have already had experience of the Deregulation and Contracting out Act 1994, which the Bill will replace, being used to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on small abattoirs. So it is clear that the power could be used, if he were to construe it in that way, to reduce regulations in slaughterhouses.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not debate the merits of matters that may or may not be subject to regulation in future. The hon. Gentleman must direct his argument to whether the House should agree new clause 1, in so far as it affects clause 1.
    Mr. Paterson: I should just like to mention the regulation that I had in mind, because if new clause 1 could affect that regulation, it would be a thoroughly worthwhile addition to the Bill. It is especially pertinent that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire mentions the Meat Hygiene Service, because I want to mention the Restriction on Pithing

    575
    (England) Regulations 2000, which have been introduced in the past five days under Commission decision 2000/418/EC. This is a most interesting case and it is germane to our debate. The regulation was introduced with well-meaning intentions, but I shall not go into the process of pithing.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will. I rule him out of order on that, because it is not within the scope of this debate.
    Mr. Paterson: I have a final question for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. Do regulations from European legislation come under the remit of the new clause?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend considered the difference between a European regulation and a directive? A regulation automatically becomes law when it is passed; a directive has to be incorporated into—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.
    Mr. Paterson: I will not be tempted to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but the debate touches on the impact of regulations on many people trying to run small businesses. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are trying to set a clear remit for the debate, but I wish to end my remarks by asking my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire how regulations would be impacted on by the new clause. Directives are reinterpreted by this Parliament under clause 6(2), so it seems to me that they would be impacted on. That is very welcome. The IPPC, which I mentioned, would appear to come under the review, and my constituents would welcome that.
    I am worried that the new clause does not cover regulation; that is the simple point that I wish to make. I would like clarification on that, but I endorse the spirit behind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. Five years is probably too long a gap—we would like it to be less—but it is a very good start. Given the appalling burdens that the Government have inflicted on the entrepreneurial classes of this country, the new clause deserves our support because it would begin to try to reverse the ratchet.
    Mr. Cash: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for as long as you may have wished, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have watched the debate with great interest from other parts of the precincts of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to such a fact. The only debate that he can possibly know about is the one that takes place in the Chamber.
    Mr. Cash: I was of course blind while I was watching it.
    I have a real problem with new clause 1, even though I support its objective. I wish to deal with the procedural questions that lie at the heart of the provisions. As you,
    576
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, have often pointed out, the new clause covers orders made under clause 1. It states:
    "Every order made under section I shall include a provision"—
    it has to refer to the fact that it includes such a provision—
    "for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year after it has come into effect".
    There is a simple but serious problem with that and it deserves close consideration: no order or statutory instrument of the House can revoke a provision made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The European directives and regulations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred cannot be repealed simply by an order of the House.
    I mention that fact because I was on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for far too long. I proposed to the Speaker's Counsel and to the Committee some years ago that, when legislation was being introduced by statutory instrument—whether it was subject to annulment or approval—the letter "E" should be used to designate some of the instruments in the exceedingly long and ever-growing list of statutory instruments. My intention was to demonstrate to the Committee that, no matter what disposition it might make or what it might recommend to the House after discussing those statutory instruments, we cannot revoke or repeal, pass or not pass them because of the 1972 Act.
    Mr. Bercow: I learned much at my hon. Friend's knee, so far be it from me to argue against him or query his superior knowledge. However, will he confirm that we cannot do what we want because new clause 1 would be incompatible with, and overridden by, the protocol on proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, against which we were co-conspirators in January 1998?
    Mr. Cash: Some overriding problems will prevail because the 1972 Act was passed in its present form. If it does not change, it will be impossible to breach the acquis communautaire. I shall go no further down that route, but my point is important. I am not trying to string out the debate.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the case that he makes does not frustrate the purpose of new clause 1. It would allow for a review and possibly a disapplication of a regulatory reform order, which can be made only if secondary legislation allows for such a reform. To disapply such a reform order by using new clause 1 cannot infringe restrictions on the use of secondary legislation under the 1972 Act.
    Mr. Cash: I do not want to get into a dispute with my hon. Friend, so perhaps we could discuss that later. It is a different story when the new clause applies to provisions that are not derived from European legislation. There is a tremendous advantage in having such a measure on the statute book in so far as it does not contradict the principle that I have just mentioned with respect to the 1972 Act.
    I am worried about the five-year provision, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned. In an intervention on him, it was suggested that it would be better to hold a review every year, but there are difficulties with doing that too frequently. It is too generous simply to assume that we

    577
    can judge whether an order has outlived its usefulness or become obstructive to small or other businesses on the arbitrary basis of a five-year term. If orders are to be made under clause 1, it should be possible to make them at any time. It should not be necessary to refer to an arbitrary period of five years.
    Mr. Paterson: I mentioned the Pollution Prevention Control Bill, of which Lord Peyton said in another place:
    "I do not believe that I have ever seen a Bill which shows more manifestly a deep and profound contempt for Parliament"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 471.]
    On that basis, many laws need reviewing as soon as their impact on business is seen. I should have thought that five years was the longest that we would want to wait to do that, because many Bills will have an impact long before that.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Cash: That is why I should have preferred the new clause to say that the Minister should "present a report on the operation of the order within five years of its coming into effect", or something along those lines.
    I take account of the fact that the object of the Bill, and clause 1 in particular, which is to try to knock sense into legislation, should be encouraged. I was the chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies reduction of legislation committee in the 1970s, so I have taken a significant interest in the subject. As I said earlier, I also introduced the Small Business Bill within four months of entering the House. That Bill specifically included as one of its objectives the reduction of legislation. I regret to say that very little was done for far too long. I am glad to note that the previous Government sought to tackle the problem. I have some sympathy with the Bill in that it seeks to achieve the objectives that many hon. Members share.
    As I pointed out in a document that I wrote several years ago, there is a system that should be followed for reports such as those mentioned in new clause 1. The new clause says:
    "Every order made under section 1 shall include a provision for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year".
    The question is, how should that be done? I should like the House, and the Minister in particular, to consider that carefully.
    I have always believed that there is a mechanism for achieving the objective of removing the burden of legislation. In preparing the report, the Minister responsible should ask the Law Commission to make a recommendation on the nature of the reforms that are needed. The Law Commission is an independent body, so it could be seen to be doing that objectively, and not in a purely internal, political manner. Once the report had been received, the Minister, having drawn together a team of specialist lawyers, could invite them to make the necessary reforms to the entire statute book.
    That was done by no less an authority on the reduction of legislation than Justinian himself. In the second or third century AD, he was faced with a monumental volume of legislation that had built up in the Roman empire. He simply drew together all the lawyers he could lay his
    578
    hands on and instructed them to go through the statute book and reduce it. They did so most effectively within a couple of years. Reports such as those that would be required by new clause 1 should address the fact that there is today a vast amount of obsolete and unnecessary legislation. That can be effectively addressed only by an objective analysis such as the one that I have described.
    Let me tell the House why. My following remarks are made without disrespect to the civil service. Ministers are Ministers of Departments; they get their advice from within those Departments. Every single piece of legislation creates a conflict of interest for the civil servants engaged in the repeal or reduction of that legislation, because legislation has to be administered by them. The bottom line is that an order would require those civil servants to be given the objective advice that I have described by the Law Commission, because they would otherwise have a disincentive to reduce legislation, which is, in effect, the source of their pay cheques. Therefore, new clause 1 is extremely important.
    Leaving aside my point about European legislation—it is insuperable and will remain so until proposals of the sort that I have in mind, such as renegotiation on a proper scale, are implemented—there is an important question about, for example, the volume of public expenditure connected with the sort of report that a Minister would be expected to introduce. Legislation necessitates the employment of a number of departmental civil servants who are required to monitor it, which gives rise to public expenditure. One cannot overestimate the need for arrangements to reduce the volume of legislation by the means set out in the Bill. It is essential to reduce the volume of legislation and thereby to reduce administration and the number of administrators. There is a tremendous amount to be said in favour of the new clause.
    Clause 1(2) refers to the "legislative competence" of the Scottish Parliament. There is a serious problem in that respect, but I do not need to spend much time on it. The relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom central Government throws up important questions relating to the sort of orders that can be made to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1 and, by implication, new clause 1. I remember debating this very subject with the late lamented former Secretary of State for Scotland during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. If a provision passed by the Scottish Parliament is ultra vires the arrangements under the Act, the Secretary of State can make an order; however, he cannot make an order that is itself ultra vires arrangements prescribed by the European Union—at whose table the UK sits in the Council of Ministers. Therefore, there is a serious problem with Scottish statutory instruments under new clause 1, just as there is within the new clause itself.
    There are many reasons to be enthusiastic about any provision that reforms laws, but the most important is that it is effective. Such provisions must reduce the amount of legislation. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, farmers—all are crying out for a reduction in legislation. We are living in a madhouse of legislation; it is far too complicated. Now, even accountants are saying that legislation has got out of hand. Some years ago, I sat on the Committee dealing with the consolidation of the Income Taxes Acts. I felt that the most useful thing I could say was that it was pointless of the Committee to try to reduce the volume of legislation, as clause 1 and

    579
    new clause 1 would achieve, if within a matter of years of their reform, the Income Taxes Acts redoubled in number. That is exactly what happened.
    The task is impossible unless people have the political will to undertake it. That political will involves a procedural arrangement within the arrangements prescribed under the report specified in new clause 1, which will permit people to know that the task will be achieved. It is one thing to say that we shall seek to achieve that task; it is another to do it.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I almost expected not to speak on the new clause. May I remind Members who did not have the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee that new clause 1, which we have been debating this afternoon, was discussed in Committee as new clause 4? The only difference between the wording of new clause 4 and new clause 1 is that "will" has been changed to "shall". The Committee discussion was satisfactory, we explored all the issues and Opposition Members decided not to press their new clause to a vote. I am surprised that we have had such a long debate this afternoon when few, if any, new points have been made.
    I should like to repeat the commitment that my noble Friend Lord Falconer gave on Second Reading in the other place on behalf of the Government. Because the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) asked for it, I shall repeat the Government's commitment to review the workings and constitutional implications of the Bill in three years' time. New clause 1 asks for a review in five years' time, which would be based on clause 6 and would allow either the House or the other place to annul unsatisfactory regulatory reform orders.
    As we discussed in Committee, the Government contend that the structures that we have in place for reviewing regulations are a more effective procedure than waiting five years to review a regulatory reform order. It is possible for the Government, or any other Government, to get a regulatory reform order or my other piece of legislation wrong. If a regulatory reform order does not have the effects and impacts envisaged in debate, it should be reviewed as soon as possible. To do that, every Department has appointed a regulatory reform Minister whose responsibility is to keep current legislation and regulations under review and look at forward regulations to make sure that they are created in the best possible way and that their burdensome effects are minimised.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office chairs the ministerial panel for regulatory accountability, which has the facility to invite Ministers from any Department to account for their current regulatory performance and ask them what they will do in future. If any regulatory reform order is operating as envisaged, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the members of the panel can summon Ministers from other Departments to discuss it. As well as those processes, there is the independent—
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am afraid that he is very insouciant about the matter. In relation to the performance of individual Departments, he says that his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office can go and see the
    580
    Minister concerned and remonstrate with him or her. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that we are arguing for something much more exacting and rigorous? That is why we have spent the best part of three and a half hours arguing for new clause 1.
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. The panel has the right to call people before it. It is the new clause that is cool and calm about regulation that goes wrong. If regulation goes wrong, why should the Government and Parliament wait for five years? Something should be done about it sooner. That is one of the reasons why I ask the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to withdraw the motion or the House to reject it.
    The better regulation taskforce, which is independent, also reviews regulation. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, with regard to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, that huge costs had been postulated by business, whereas the Government argued that the costs would be considerably less. If the Government were wrong, their response to the report of the better regulation taskforce—that they would keep the workings and the impact of that Act under review—was a better response than waiting for five years. If the Government had got it wrong, it would be better to have a continual review, which was the Government's stated policy in response to the better regulation taskforce's report on e-commerce.
    Mr. Cash: If the Minister cannot immediately answer my question, which I ask in all seriousness, will he write to me? Can he explain, with reference to new clause 1 and more specifically to clause 1, how it is possible to change laws if they are derived from European Union regulations or directives? There is nothing in the Bill which states that it shall not apply to provisions that derive from those sources. Is it to be assumed, therefore, that such provisions cannot and will not be changed, because of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972?
    Mr. Stringer: My understanding is that if European legislation is transposed into British legislation by primary legislation, and that legislation is a regulatory framework, the regulatory reform order process can amend the primary legislation. That is the purpose of the Bill.
    Mr. Paterson: Not surprisingly, the Minister is defending his Government's mechanism for reviewing legislation and regulation. Can he tell us how many measures have been reviewed, and how many have been repealed or reduced as a result of those reviews?
    Mr. Stringer: If the hon. Gentleman looks through the DTI programme, the recommendations of the better regulation taskforce and the number of deregulation orders, he will understand that a great deal of work has been done. I cannot quantify it, without notice of the question. So much work has been done in this regard that it would be a costly exercise to quantify it.
    I come to the second point, which is very different and much more dangerous than the first.
    One can understand Opposition Members arguing for a review after five years, but it is much more difficult to understand the proposal to allow this House or the other

    581
    place to remove any regulatory reform order. I think that it derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of what such an order is. It can put previous Acts of Parliament in one place, simplify them and rebalance regulatory regimes, but it might refer to previous primary legislation. Disapplying the order before deciding what to do—I think that those were the words that were used by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—could leave a huge hole in any regulatory regime. He gave the example of fire regulations. The removal of such regulation could leave everybody in the country without its protection.
    Mr. Lansley: For the avoidance of doubt, I should tell the Parliamentary Secretary that in terms of fire regulation, the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that a review occurs if it has not happened under any other mechanism within five years. Of course, it is open to the Government to introduce a new regulatory reform order instead of simply disapplying orders, but the power to disapply the order might be the best way of achieving a deregulatory effect.
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I admit that fire regulations are an extreme example, but the essential point remains: a hole could be left in regulations. It would be within the power of this House and of the other place to leave such a hole. That is the second fundamental reason why I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw the motion. The new clause would give the other place power to remove chunks of primary legislation without the agreement of this House. That must be a brand-new position for Opposition Members, who seem to be saying that the other place should be able to do things that this House might not want. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood what he was doing when he included the phrase "either House of Parliament" in the new clause, as it would allow either House to make an order. If he did understand it, that is an extraordinary position for Opposition Members, as the provision would give some legislative primacy to the other place.
    I shall not follow Opposition Members all the way around Europe, the world and several dictionaries, which is where they went in their speeches. I do not think that the case has been made for the new clause. I am not sure whether many of the hon. Members who spoke understood the provision that they supported or were aware that it would pass power down the Corridor. I request that the hon. Gentleman seeks leave to withdraw the motion. If he will not do so, I ask the House to reject it.
    Mr. Lansley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the time, and although I do not accept the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments, I want to move to the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 3

    LIMITATIONS ON ORDER-MAKING POWER
    Mr. Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 9, leave out "(a)".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 3, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert—
    'is also of the opinion—

    (a) that the burdens created or imposed as a result of the provisions of the order are less onerous than those reduced or removed; or

    (b) that other beneficial effects for persons affected by the provisions of the order, not including those effects which only relate to Ministers of the Crown, government departments or statutory bodies, make it desirable for the order to be made.'.

    Mr. Lansley: After the hors d'oeuvres, we come to the main course, although we will have to eat very fast.
    I think that I can state the amendment's purpose pretty straightforwardly. On Second Reading, we tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill as a whole on the grounds that it sought to use an exceptional power not for the original purpose for which it was created, which was a deregulatory one. We lost the Division on that amendment.
    In Committee, we tried to ensure that, in imposing limitations on the order-making power, the Bill would not only have the deregulatory purpose for which amendments in another place provided, but that the burdens that were removed exceeded those that were created or imposed That was resisted.
    There may be a technical, drafting problem with the amendment, but I hope not. I emphasise that we are searching for a compromise. We understand that the Government intend to establish a power not only to reimpose burdens in existing legislation when reforming a regulatory system, but to create new burdens. The Government should be required under the Bill to consider additional or recreated burdens and determine whether they are more or less onerous than the provisions that are to be reduced or removed.
    Such a requirement is similar to the provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which was tighter than the Bill, but provided that Ministers could create burdens that related to the subject matter of, but were less onerous than that imposed by, the existing provision. Existing legislation therefore already provides for weighing up burdens.
    If Ministers want to proceed down the path of imposing burdens that are more onerous than those that are reduced or removed, they should he required to express that in the Bill. If the burdens are more onerous, they should balance that against the benefits that will accrue. However, they should not be public sector benefits.
    We want to reach a compromise. If Ministers intend to have the power to impose new burdens, let them do that, but not through reference to benefits that would accrue to the public sector, Ministers, Departments and statutory bodies. If Ministers can demonstrate that benefits to the private sector will outweigh the additional burdens that they want to impose, they should quantify them.
    I will stop speaking simply to give the Minister an opportunity to reply. However, the amendment constitutes a genuine effort to move from our earlier position to one that might be acceptable to the Government.
    Mr. Stringer: I shall to be brief. There was an attempt in Committee to turn the Bill into another deregulation

    583
    measure. I hoped that I had convinced Conservative Members that the purpose of the Bill was to re-balance regulatory regimes and that even if the powers in the 1994 Act had been brought up to date, they would not have enabled a Minister to take action to improve a regulatory regime. I gave an example in Committee that is worth reiterating. If a Minister wants to re move many small burdens from shops and place larger burdens on supermarkets, it is difficult to ascertain the way in which to weigh that up and calculate the benefits and disbenefits. Yet common sense shows that there is a reason for that.
    In trying to reintroduce paragraph (a), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has reopened the debate. There is a conflict between the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the amendment. That is confusing. Proposed new paragraph (a) would turn the Bill into a deregulatory measure. Yet proposed new paragraph (b) states:
    "that other beneficial effects for persons affected by the provisions of the order, not including those effects which only relate to Ministers of the Crown, government departments or statutory bodies, make it desirable for the order to be made."
    That replaces tighter tests for which clauses 1 and 3 provide. We spent a great deal of time discussing those proportionate tests—
    It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [19 March], put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    6 pm
    Mr. Stringer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am pleased that the Bill is proceeding through its final parliamentary stages. It is more than two years since we first consulted on it and almost exactly a year since it was published in draft. As a result of prolonged gestation, the Bill received a thorough, almost unprecedented amount of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government listened to anxieties and accepted several amendments in another place. Those amendments ensure that all orders must be based on a deregulatory measure.
    The Bill has undergone further scrutiny in this House. I am pleased that Committee stage was marked by a consensual and constructive approach by all parties. Although no further amendments were made to the Bill, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree that our debates in Committee made the Government's position clear on a number of issues where some hon. Members still had doubts. Indeed, a draft form was produced for the consultation that the Department should go through when it is consulting on a regulatory reform order. Some of the structure of that is thanks to Conservative Members. We had a constructive debate in Committee.
    Mr. Cash: I shall pursue a point that I made at an earlier stage about the compatibility of obligations resulting from membership of the European Union, and the directives and regulations that derive from that and section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. I have been reading again the explanatory notes to the Bill, and I bear in mind the Minister's reply. I think I saw movement upwards and downwards—nodding—from the Front Bench when the Minister replied. There is an important question that needs to be resolved.
    584
    On the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, on page 56 the explanatory notes clearly state:
    "Subject to the terms of any Standing Order under which they were appointed, any such Committee might well consider in each case whether proposals … appeared to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union."
    I want clarification in writing of whether any order made under the Bill could be made if it were incompatible with an obligation derived from a directive, a regulation or other legislative enactment of the European Union.
    Mr. Stringer: I think that the courts are considering that very point. It is not quite the question that the hon. Gentleman asked before. However, I am happy to write to him on that issue.
    Having had such a serious and detailed consensual debate in Committee, I was disappointed—perhaps I should not have been—by the debate on Report. We did not discuss areas of consultation or the amount of deregulatory action that should be within the Bill, if indeed there is a difference between the Front Benches on that issue. We did not discuss whether the wording should be simpler or clarified within regulatory reform orders. These matters were not discussed. In many instances we had what were, in effect, Second Reading speeches. That is disappointing. As many hon. Members have said, there is an interest on the part of business, as well as of Members of this House and the other place, in getting regulation right, and in making it as unburdensome on business as we can. That requires a detailed and thoughtful understanding of the regulatory process. It does not require simple, ideological statements that are grounded not in objective evidence but in prejudice.
    I can only think that a lack of political confidence, and a lack of confidence in their own intellectual analysis of how regulations impact on business, led to the Opposition's being unprepared to debate the details, despite all the time available this afternoon. If they had debated them, they might not have had to repeat clichés such as the one about this country being the most heavily regulated and becoming even more so. Almost every independent study, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study published in December 1999, showed that that was not so. That study showed that, in terms of product market regulation and the barriers of trade, ours was the least regulated of the OECD countries.
    A number of Conservative Members made the standard prejudiced point that we were the only member of the European Union that played by the rules. In fact, if we compare this country's performance on the speed with which legislation is transposed with that of other countries, we are mid-table. We are also mid-table in terms of the number of infraction proceedings against this country; we are neither the best nor the worst. The better regulation taskforce's study comparing the hotel industries in France and the United Kingdom concluded that the hotel industry in France was slightly more heavily regulated than ours.
    The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has been mentioned a number of times—fondly, I think, by Conservative Members—for the work that he did on deregulation and better regulation. In 1994, he set up a taskforce to consider how we, compared with other European countries, had transposed some European

    585
    legislation. His report was very long, but it found very little evidence to support the contention advanced by Conservative Members. I am confident that the Bill will become a valuable tool for implementing important reforms. It will also help Ministers to act in those situations in which regulation is being applied in too heavy-handed a fashion. Again, that is not a party political point, but something that all sides welcome.
    Mr. Paterson: The Minister sounds immensely complacent to me. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates, in its burdens barometer, that £9.62 billion has been imposed on business in the form of burdens, yet the Minister has just dismissed that. That is a very significant sum of money, and it bears down disproportionately on small businesses.
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman must not mistake my nearly being sent to sleep by some Conservative Members' speeches—which were rather off the point—for complacency. If we were complacent, we would not be introducing this Regulatory Reform Bill. We have introduced it because we know that there is a problem, and that the Government can improve their performance on regulations. Indeed, any Government can do so.
    We are aware that all regulations that apply to small, medium and large businesses impact disproportionately on the small businesses. It is an arithmetical fact that they do so. That is why we have taken measures either to exempt small businesses or, as the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement, to give special support to them. I remind the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that since this Government came to office, there has been a net increase in small businesses of 150,000 or thereabouts. Those businesses are being created faster and are lasting longer than under the previous Government. Those 150,000 small businesses have contributed to the 1 million jobs that have been created over the past four years.
    Mr. Bercow: The Minister seeks to assure us that he is not complacent. I do not doubt for a moment that he will acknowledge the superiority of the record of the United States relative not only to Britain but to all the member states of the European Union in job creation and retention these past 30 years. In that context, and in preparation for the Regulatory Reform Bill, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment he has made of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States?
    Mr. Stringer: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in comparative studies between the regulatory burden in this country and in the United States, when state and federal regulations are added together, this country comes out very favourably. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the OECD study that I mentioned earlier.
    The Bill is an excellent tool in itself and an exemplar of scrutiny both before it reached Parliament and when it was before this House and another place. I look forward to its wide and frequent use in improving this country's regulatory regime and achieving a legislative framework to suit the modern world.
    6.11 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister on Third Reading. Even though he chided Conservative Members for making what he described as Second Reading speeches on new clause 1, I felt that the Minister wanted to revisit the Second Reading debate himself. However, we have had that debate. I am pleased to echo the Minister's view that there was a constructive attitude to the Committee proceedings throughout, although we secured no changes to the Bill in Committee, nor was it ever likely that we would secure any changes on Report. It was right for my colleagues to use their time to express their sense of concern about the pace and increases in regulation. It was perhaps their best opportunity to express their concern rather than to play the Government's game that it is now simply a matter of debating the legislation's technicalities and procedures.
    The Government will no doubt have their Bill. We objected to it on the ground that it did not have a solely deregulatory purpose. None the less, I hope that it will be only a short time before we have the responsibility of using it. We have agreed that the legislation is not without merit. It is true that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 did not necessarily give sufficient scope for reforming a scheme of regulation rather than regulations that related to one subject alone. It was certainly a limitation, even on a deregulatory purpose, for the 1994 Act to confine deregulation and contracting out orders to legislation passed prior to the point at which the Act came into force. So there is merit in the Bill for that reason.
    We will be able to use this legislation for a positive deregulatory purpose. I freely admit that I do not exclude the possibility of occasionally changing a scheme of regulation in ways that impose burdens at the same time as reducing them elsewhere, thus rebalancing them. It is not inconceivable that from time to time one has to restructure legislation to impose burdens.
    I remind the House that our objection to the Bill was that it did not seem to us right to use the exceptional, supra-affirmative procedure. That procedure was created by the previous Conservative Government, and opposed by the then Labour Opposition. It was designed for the very specific purpose of reducing the extent to which the Executive place burdens on private citizens. However, the Bill applies the supra-affirmative procedure to many purposes other than deregulation. Whatever the Minister may say, and regardless of the nature of amendments to be tabled in another place, the deregulatory purpose may be no more than a fig leaf to cover the Government's regulatory intent.
    I do not want to intrude a harsh partisan point, but we believe—from our experience and from the experience of those dealing with business—that regulation has increased under this Government. A number of business organisations' representatives consider that increase to be excessive and believe it should it be rolled back.
    I turn once more to Sir Martin Jacomb, who wrote in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week:
    "Early last month, the Prime Minister invited a group of business people to breakfast at Chequers; they told him how regulation and tax bureaucracy were stifling enterprise, which apparently came as news to him. It surprised no one else."
    That is the essence we know what the Government and the Minister clearly do not—that the business sector is finding that the increasing burden of regulation inevitably stifles enterprise. The Government have not established an underlying system to try to reduce that burden.

    587
    It will be a Conservative responsibility to reduce the burden of regulation. The Bill is not enough. It should be used only by a Government in the context of a system for reducing regulation generally. We debated review clauses in the context of new clause 1, but such a mechanism should be only one element of an intention to introduce sunset clauses on all future regulations and legislation that have the effect of increasing burdens.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman said what the Bill should be used for. Does that mean that the Conservative party will not honour its commitment when the new Regulatory Reform Committee looks at the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979? The Government have promised that changes to that legislation will be made at one of the Committee's first meetings.
    Mr. Lansley: I am surprised at that question, as the hon. Gentleman was an assiduous member of the Standing Committee. In our deliberations, I offered the reform of the 1979 Act as an example of something that we did not oppose. I said that we supported it. However, he will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has told the House that the Opposition believe that that proposal for reform of legislation should have been included in the Queen's Speech, and achieved by primary legislation.
    It is not for me or the Minister to anticipate the contents of a Queen's Speech. An extension of the vaccine damage payments scheme might be achieved by means of a regulatory reform order or primary legislation. However, the House should not be under the misapprehension that we would not want to extend the scheme.
    Regulatory reform orders should be used in the context of a deregulatory initiative across the board. Sunset clauses have a part to play, as does the reform of institutions established by the Government such as the panel for regulatory accountability, the better regulation taskforce, the regulatory impact unit, and so on. They are all very well, but do not deliver the objective sought by business.
    Essentially, two things are needed. The first is a stronger agency—a deregulation commission with the power to block additional burdens imposed by legislation and to examine them under a special procedure before they are proceeded with. In that way, business could have a voice with influence in Government to limit legislation.
    We also need an audit of the burden that regulation imposes on businesses. We need to establish a baseline in order to create regulatory budgets which will have the progressive effect of reducing the overall burden on business. Unless we do that, precisely the opposite tendency will apply. There is a tendency for Governments to increase the burden of regulation systematically over time, as is happening under the present Government. That is inevitable, not only because they do not have a system to reduce regulation, but because it is often their intention.
    Each year, the Institute of Chartered Accountants carries out a survey of its business advisers, looking at the cost to businesses of complying with the legislation that came into effect in the preceding year. That is not the total cost of complying with legislation, but a measure of the in-year change in the burden of new legislation. In 1999 it estimated that the cost to micro-businesses, or businesses with up to five employees, was £1,700. It rose
    588
    to £3,600 in the year to July 2000. For small businesses, which for this purpose were defined as businesses with up to 50 employees, the figure was £4,700 in 1999 and £8,000 in the year to July 2000. That illustrates that it is not simply that there is an excessive burden of legislation and regulation, but that the rate at which it is being imposed is still increasing and needs to be reversed.
    Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in theory the new committee to be established by the Bill could conduct an inquiry into the way in which the Act was being used, and in a year's time, for example, could publish a report raising some of those points? Given the additional debates on Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall, the issue could be debated if the opportunities that the Government are anxious should be used are not seized as a result of the new Act.
    Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I was going to touch on later—that it is important for the legislation to be reviewed. In response to an earlier debate, the Minister made it clear that it remains the Government's intention to conduct such a review and to report some three years hence in relation to the procedures, the order-making process and the constitutional and other procedural issues, but not in relation to the policy as the Government regard that as having been settled.
    The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made the very fair point that the Regulatory Reform Committee, if it is to be so styled, could indeed undertake such a review. My hon. Friends and I would welcome that because, at the risk of repeating myself, we all tend towards legislation and regulations where, to put it in military parlance, we fire and forget. We need to see where the bullets hit and what damage they do. If they have the intended benefit or better, that is all well and good, and I am sure that the policy that lay behind any particular regulatory reform order will be seen to have been vindicated.
    Without debating with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) the estimates of what the compliance and other impacts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will be, it is also legitimate for people to take distinct and differing views of the impact of legislation that is passed through the House, so it is vital that we do not treat the policy as given and then move on. In that respect I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers might revise their intention and make it clear that they will participate and help the new committee and the House to look not only at the policy, but at the effectiveness of the regulatory reform orders that are introduced, at their compliance with the structure of the document set out in clause 6, and at whether the orders have the effects that were intended.
    On that point, I thank the Minister for writing to me, to the hon. Member for Burnley and to the Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in another place about the process of preliminary consultation. It will be much to the advantage of the Regulatory Reform Committee, the House and consultees if they are given direction as to the issues that will have to be addressed in the document specified in clause 6.
    Notwithstanding the Minister's positive response, it is not the purpose of the preliminary consultation to apply the tests proposed in one or two of the regulatory reform

    589
    order consultation papers. I do not dispute the importance of the fair balance and desirability tests under clause 3, but they are for Ministers and the House to apply—on advice from the Regulatory Reform Committee. The Minister noted that preliminary consultation should not attempt to make judgments or to reach conclusions before information has been acquired. It thus seems premature to make judgments as to desirability or fair balance before a document is laid before the House. Those matters do not belong in the preliminary consultation process.
    Other matters, however, should be covered: the burdens that are to be affected; the reduction or removal of burdens; the imposition of burdens; whether necessary protection is removed; whether reasonable expectations are to be frustrated; and the savings and increases in costs. Indeed, if the Minister wants to take this path—although the measure does not require it—the question of specific impacts on particular persons or groups could be addressed. The Minister referred to the importance of considering the disproportionate impacts that sometimes affect small businesses. He rightly said that we should always consider the exemption of small businesses from legislation that may have disproportionate effects on them owing to their lack of internal resources for dealing with it. If the document and the preliminary consultation provided for under clause 6 could identify such impacts, it would be useful.
    During Report stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to risk assessment. In one of the consultation documents, the Home Office, too, expressed the issue in terms of risk assessment. It is important to do so; I have no criticism of that. Often, in the pursuit of spurious accuracy in compliance cost assessments, there is a tendency to fix a figure and ignore things that are more difficult to quantify or that are the subject of variable assumptions. At certain points in the consultation document, it is important to include risk assessment so as to assess the assumptions—to work out how sensitive the compliance costs are to the factors in the proposal and to the assumptions made as to how those factors will apply.
    I do not want to delay the House, as colleagues may want to speak. If we have the opportunity to use the legislation, we shall set it firmly in the context that I have described. Although the Minister did not accept our amendments, I hope that the Government will stand by not only the undertakings that they have already given—not to introduce large or controversial measures; not to proceed with a regulatory reform—
    Mr. Stringer: We have given a commitment not to introduce large and controversial measures—that is an important point.
    Mr. Lansley: I beg the Minister's pardon; he is right. Fire safety legislation is large by anybody's measure—it remains to be seen whether it is controversial.
    The Government have undertaken not to introduce large and controversial measures; not to proceed with a regulatory reform order in the light of an adverse view from the Deregulation Committee, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee or the Regulatory Reform Committee; and—in the light of our discussions—to proceed through preliminary consultation in a form that is much more geared to the House's scrutiny requirements.
    590
    I hope that, even if Ministers will not necessarily give undertakings to that effect, they will none the less continually respond when the legislation is in use, whether it is a Labour or a Conservative Administration that have occasion to do so. I hope that they will simplify legislation and make it more comprehensible. We discussed such an amendment in Committee and sought to do so again on Report, but did not have an opportunity.
    I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is the sort of review process that we discussed and that codes of practice, which we have not discussed to any great extent during the passage of the Bill are in line with the enforcement concordat and with the further recommendations of the better regulation taskforce as time goes by.
    I also hope that Ministers will use the powers only in the spirit in which they are intended and always with a substantive deregulatory effect. I hope that they will examine critically the use of the powers if they have benefited the public sector or significantly increased burdens, notwithstanding judgments they may make about desirability.
    A strong deregulatory purpose should lie behind the regulatory reform orders that are made. I hope that the legislation will be used for the purpose for which the whole procedure was first created back in 1994.
    6.31 pm
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I appreciate that it is tempting fate to say that I shall be brief, since every speech this afternoon has started with that preface but lasted half an hour. However, I will be brief, partly because much of the work on the Bill was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), who also sits on the Deregulation Committee. I shall simply summarise our broad approach to the Bill.
    From the outset, we have supported the principle of the Bill and we regard it as useful legislation, but we have been somewhat concerned about the constitutional implications. We have attempted to deal with those concerns through amendments, some of which were successful in the other place and some of which were not.
    In general, we are probably a little obsessed with the quantity of regulation. Quantity is important—tax complexity, for example, is important in itself—but the real issue is how to get a mechanism for distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary and good and bad regulations. That is the crucial issue with which this reform must deal.
    The Minister gave the reasons for the Bill and I do not need to repeat them in detail. Essentially, the 1994 legislation was insufficient in its scope. This legislation will enable batches of related regulations to take effect. Several references have been made to the fire safety regulations—an interesting test case. I am particularly interested in those as I have been involved in the work of the all-party fire safety group and I know about the impatience of fire officers for regulatory reform and an overhaul as quickly as possible.
    The second positive point is that, as far as I can gauge, most business federations—the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the chambers of commerce—despite having some reservations about the Bill, regard it as a welcome signal that is worth supporting.

    591
    Some of my hon. Friends' earlier concerns have been met, in particular, through clause 1(3), which was introduced by Lord Goodhart in the other place and built in a commitment that any change should be deregulatory in its effect and therefore help to tackle some of the concerns that have been expressed at considerable length this afternoon that the legislation could be used for re-regulation rather than deregulation
    There are several constitutional concerns. One is the big constitutional issue of the potential for the Bill to be abused. The Minister has just dealt with that with his commitment not to introduce large and controversial measures under the provisos of the legislation. We hope that that commitment will be observed.
    We were concerned that there is, perhaps, an undue reliance on ministerial subjectivity in the tests and we hope that the new committee, when it is established—we were not successful in agreeing amendments to deal with this—will apply its own objective test to Ministers' subjective estimates of benefit.
    The reporting process is the other important issue that has been referred to at some length this afternoon. The Conservatives are pushing the five-year review, the Minister has his three-year review and in Committee we argued for a one-year review. We hope, in particular on the basis of the intervention of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), that the new committee will take up the spirit of those attempted amendments and report annually to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives.
    My final point is that an awful lot depends not on the letter of the legislation, but on its spirit. We will look for two things to ensure that the Government are committed to the spirit of deregulation, the first c f which is how they approach regulatory impact assessments. In commenting on new clause 1, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), made some useful remarks about how they are abused or not taken sufficiently seriously.
    I hope that the Cabinet Office, perhaps with the Government economic service, will produce a paper explaining the methodology of regulatory impact assessment and how it can work consistently, so that it becomes not an empty ritual, but a serious measure not only of the compliance costs of regulation but of its overall economic impact, positive and negative.
    The other element of the spirit of the Bill is consultation. Many, of the problems with the working time directive, for example, simply arose because Whitehall officials and Ministers did not take sufficient time to talk to business, or even the trade unions, about the way in which the complicated regulations would come into effect. A combination of proper consultation and a rigorous, consistent measure of impact assessment would do much for the spirit of the Bill on top of the formal legislative changes.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Owen Paterson: I should like briefly to deal with the Minister's earlier comments, which were complacent. He made all the right noises, but he and the Government do not understand the crushing burden of the relentless juggernaut of regulation being imposed on business every day. He did not reply to my intervention.
    592
    The British Chambers of Commerce has estimated the cost to be £9.62 billion—a huge sum. That has a devastating impact, especially on smaller businesses. Last December, the president of the CBI—the representative of large businesses—said:
    "simplification of existing laws is very welcome, but it will not ease concern about the relentless build up of new regulations".
    The Minister underestimates how much legislation exists and how difficult it is for smaller businesses to cope with it.
    I should like to touch briefly on one new law that will have a most dramatic impact on a sector that is very much in the public mind at the moment. As was said on Report, there is concern in the agricultural sector about the future of small abattoirs. There is not time to mention the impact on the Meat Hygiene Service. What is most interesting in the example that I shall cite is that, through the Food Standards Agency, the Meat Hygiene Service highlighted the dangers of the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000, which I mentioned on Report.
    Currently, 254 abattoirs—about two thirds of those that still survive the current crushing burden of regulation—use the pithing process. In brief, it involves the insertion of a rod into the brain of a stunned animal to break down its nervous system to stop it kicking. A bullock can cause severe damage in an abattoir—its death throes can maim and kill people. It is a most important process in small abattoirs and it is vital for craft abattoirs. The whole organic meat industry is most concerned that small abattoirs should continue to be locally based near to the sources of livestock to keep production, processing and markets close together. There is a consensus in the countryside that it is a good idea to keep small abattoirs going.
    Last year, the president of the Small Abattoir Federation predicted that small butchers will have nowhere to buy their meat and
    "it will be a huge social, economic and animal welfare disaster"
    if that measure were passed. The federation was told in October that it was likely to come into effect on 1 January, and there were protests in the industry. On 22 February this year, the federation was sent a letter, informing it that the measure would not be applied until 1 April.
    The measure was introduced under the negative procedure, laid before Parliament on 20 February and it became law on 1 April. I have talked to the Under?Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has been most sympathetic and understanding.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are wide of the mark. He must talk about the Bill's contents.
    Mr. Paterson: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was citing a specific example, because I would like the Minister to tell me whether such a measure could be improved when the Bill becomes law.
    A piece of legislation was introduced and the Under-Secretary of State for Health took a real interest in the problem that it created. She took the trouble to go to an abattoir, saw the problem and agreed with the assessment of the Food Standards Agency—the Meat Hygiene Service is often rebuked for over-regulation—that the jobs

    593
    of workers in abattoirs could be put at risk and that insurance costs might rise so dramatically that abattoirs could be closed. Unless substantial investment was made, many would not be able to carry on.
    The Under-Secretary kindly said that I could bring a delegation to see her but, because of the foot and mouth crisis, sadly no one was free. Despite her sympathy and interest, this small measure, which is hardly known to the rest of the world, became law. However, it will put at risk many craft abattoirs, so will the Minister answer a simple question? Will the Bill improve the chances of minimising the impact of such regulations and will it preserve the small businesses that suffer so much from them?
    6.41 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: It is a matter of regret that, because the debate on new clause 1 went on for so long, my devastating attack on aspects of the Bill that would have been illustrated by my speech on amendment No. 4 was not reached.
    Conservative Members welcome anything that will reduce the burdens on business. The Government might be the master of spin, but the substance is starting to wear thin, so we remain to be convinced that the Labour leopard has changed its spots.
    When we were in government, the Labour party told us that it would cut red tape and that the better regulation taskforce would deal with all these matters. However, the number of regulations has soared and Lord Haskins is on record as saying that the taskforce has not worked. Reality sits ill with what the Minister said. I leave it to the House to decide whether he or the British Chambers of Commerce is correct when we consider the impact of Government policies on small businesses.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has illustrated the extreme costs that have hit small businesses over the past four years. A mere handful of regulations have been altered under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, but it surely would have been possible for the Government to make the system operate more effectively. They have done nothing, so after four years—and 30 days or so before a general election—they introduce the Bill saying, "We will deregulate; we will save small businesses", but we must ask, "Will they? Will they keep to their word?"
    I admit that the Government are saying all the right things about deregulation and the explanatory notes describe the 50 or so areas that can be tackled by being simplified. However, the House and the country should not forget that the Bill is only half the equation. The other half is the sausage machine that turns out regulation after regulation. There is nothing that will stop a vast number of regulations appearing.
    I caution everyone against getting too enthusiastic about the Bill. It is larded with phrases that suggest that the Minister's hand is firmly on the deregulation tap, but we must see whether he ensures that the tap operates at full bore or is reluctant to let it rip. The Bill is larded with phrases such as "if it appears to the Minister", "if the Minister considers it appropriate" and "as it appears to him". It is very much in the Minister's hands to control the effectiveness of the Bill.
    594
    We should worry about what the Committee was not allowed to change. In particular, I am concerned about the Government's reasons for rejecting our amendments. We asked to reduce the impact of the ministerial hand and to put more power into the two deregulation Committees, but that was refused. We were told that the Minister should have control. In today's long debate on new clause 1, we asked for a five-year review, but he came up with reasons why that would not be a good idea. The truth is that had new clause 1 been successful, it would have given the Committees the power to consider the regulations in sequence every five years, subject them to the provisions of clause 6 and, if necessary, tell the Minister that they should be changed. That would have put the Minister under pressure to deal with them—but no, he wanted to keep the power and control in his hands.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire moved amendment No. 3, which was grouped with amendment No. 2. They were designed to reduce the way in which the Government can use the Bill to add to burdens on business. Again, our request was refused. The Committee desperately tried to make life easier for the small business man and woman. We wanted the Government to accept an amendment to ensure the use of plain English in regulations. Indeed, the Minister for the Cabinet Office twice assured the House about that on Second Reading. She said:
    "We—
    the Government—
    "have taken active steps to ensure that what regulations are introduced are necessary, simple, and easy to understand and implement."
    She went on to tell us that she chairs
    "a panel on regulatory accountability whose key task is to scrutinise Departments' regulatory proposals and ensure that they meet that high standard. I call Ministers to come to the panel and justify their proposals if the panel thinks that they do not meet its criteria."—[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 23.]
    We wanted to help and support her in that task, hence the amendment. The Bill must fall within those parameters. It has 15 clauses and is 11 pages long, but it has taken the regulatory impact unit of the Cabinet Office—the guardian, according to the Minister, of the interests of small business—58 pages and, I estimate, just over 30,000 words to explain its purpose.
    I shall resist illustrating my case by working out how many words there are in the Lord's prayer, the creed and the declaration of American independence and ending up with the number of words in the regulatory requirements for the import of caramel, which run to tens of thousands. The fact is that small businesses are visited by inspectors who are experts in their subject. They know everything and expect the small business man to be an expert. That is not fair or right because regulations can be extremely complex.
    However, we said "Amen" to the right hon. Lady's words because we thought how right she was, but, despite her assurances, in Committee we ran into a brick wall in the shape of the Parliamentary Secretary. When we argued for plain speaking, he said:
    "it is important that the law is precise, even if it is not in plain English."
    He went on to claim:
    "When people's freedoms, liberty and costs are involved, it is better to be precise than to insist on the objective of plain English, which is a subjective opinion".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 2001; c. 31–32.]

    595
    I do not accept that we cannot phrase our regulations in plain English. They do not have to be open to a subjective interpretation or contain a series of words that might be misinterpreted or read a different way by the courts. Our businesses require regulations to be short, sharp and clearly understood. If there were more time, I would have liked to bring to the House a pile of incomprehensible regulations that would take hours to read, with no one being any wiser after having done so because they are incredibly complicated. However, time is not on our side.
    I shall draw my brief remarks to a close by repeating that the Opposition welcome the Bill, as we welcome anything that will reduce the burdens on business. We recognise that business is the growth engine of our economy, and we want to see it go from strength to strength. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and I look forward to the Minister implementing the Bill quickly during the few days that he has left in his position. He can rest assured that when we are in power, I shall look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire busily making sure that the Bill is effective, and if he does not work hard at it, I will chase him just as I will chase the Minister.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Stringer: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to three points. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has made the same objective analysis of the Conservative party's prospects in the general election as he has of certain provisions in the Bill. I am afraid that despite spending many hours in Committee, he has not understood the importance of the consultation process and the consensual approach of the Deregulation Committee and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about the power in the Minister's hands, but the real importance of the supra-affirmative process lies in the fact that the Minister has
    596
    his or her judgment checked by one of the Committees. If there is no consensus in the Committee, the proposal will return to the Minister. During the seven years in which the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has been operating, consensus has always been achieved on the Committee's final decision. Achieving that consensus is much more important than all the safeguards about being proportionate, not removing necessary protection and upholding the freedoms that one could normally expect to enjoy. Those safeguards are important, but in the past the Committees have operated as a significant safeguard, and I expect that they will do so in future. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood that point and underestimated the power of the Committees in the process.
    The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) asked about pithing. The answer is that it depends entirely on the origin of the regulations. The powers in the Bill are directed at primary legislation, so if the regulations on pithing did not originate in primary legislation, which I understand they did not, the Bill will not apply to them.
    I finish on a theme that has run through the debates here and in the other place. There is consensus in the House about the fact that no one wants to place unnecessary regulatory burdens on business, but to have a serious debate about the cost of regulations, it is necessary to define the word "burden". It is not helpful when Opposition Members or organisations representing business mix in with regulatory costs the costs of policy implementation. For example, the cost of implementing the minimum wage—of increasing wages—is not a regulatory cost, and there are almost no such costs associated with the minimum wage. The Government make no apology for improving the conditions of working people in this country.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Prisoners of War (Germany)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  6.55 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: It is a privilege to introduce this Adjournment debate on a subject that is very different from the one that we have just discussed.
  I should start by apologising to the Minister: I have written to him and I know that the normal courtesy would be to wait to receive his reply before proceeding to an Adjournment debate, but we are close to the end of a parliamentary Session and I wanted the issues to be aired in time, especially as time is not on the side of the people on whom the debate focuses.
  I raise the subject primarily on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Harding, but the arguments that he would make are extremely similar to the more general arguments advanced by the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association. I have discussed his experiences with Mr. Harding, who is now 83 years old. He served in the early stages of the war and fought in the battle of Calais defending the retreat from Dunkirk in the last-ditch defence of the British troops being evacuated from the beaches. He was captured by the Germans and, after a long and difficult journey, arrived at Stalag 8B, a work camp in Silesia. That part of eastern Europe contained many work camps connected with mines and sugar beet factories; Mr. Harding was employed by Siemens on construction work. In those camps, prisoners of war were expected to work. They worked in what Mr. Harding and people who shared his experiences regard as slave labour conditions.
  Mr. Harding is an extremely tough man, with a remarkable spirit for one of his age and experience, but apart from having his health permanently broken, one of the legacies of that experience is an inability to talk about what happened, even 53 years later. However, he discovered that he could set down his experiences on paper, which led to his writing a book called "A Cockney Soldier", in which he describes some of those experiences. His tone is matter of fact and not piteous, and his book is all the more powerful for that. He describes years of malnutrition; working in the extreme cold—sometimes minus 25 deg—without heating or protection; and extremely dangerous conditions of work in which colleagues were mutilated or killed because of the absence of even minimal safeguards.
  Mr. Harding also describes what can only be called cruel punishments. In his camp, fainting was regarded as a form of malingering and those who fainted because of malnutrition were punished. One of his friends who could not rise from his bed because of the weakness caused by fever was punished by being locked in a room for three days; he was dead when the door was finally unlocked. I do not want to go into the details, but it is important to establish the facts, because the crux of the argument about the treatment of those former prisoners of war is whether they were looked after within the terms of the Geneva convention.
  I appreciate that the concept of compensation has changed to a remarkable extent since the second world war. Compensation is now paid for problems that sometimes appear frivolous. I would not describe stress at work as frivolous, but large compensation payments have
  598
  been made to people who have suffered experiences that are not remotely comparable to those that were suffered by Mr. Harding and his fellow prisoners of war. I was too young to be called up by the Army, let alone to have served during the war, so I cannot understand the depth of those men's experiences, but they were clearly far more serious than many of the things that we now regard as being worthy of compensation.
  How has compensation for POWs been dealt with? There was a welcome breakthrough a few months ago, when the Government accepted the principle of compensation for Japanese POWs.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Dr. Cable: There was a welcome development when the Government decided to award compensation to Japanese POWs. Two constituents of mine have already received their cheques and are very appreciative; they feel that the campaign was extremely successful, and they welcomed the role that the Government played in it. However, a price Was paid. I am not sure why it was felt tactically necessary by those campaigning for Japanese POWs, but they were always at great pains to stress that they were not trying to create a precedent for POWs in Europe. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke on that subject in an Adjournment debate on 6 June. He said:
  "I do not accept that such payments"—
  for Japanese POWS—
  "might lead to other claims by ex-POWs, which, I suspect, has been one reason why the Government have been reluctant to come to a favourable decision and to concede on the issue. What other claims would there be from former POWs? I have no reason to believe those held by the Germans … are pressing such claims."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 30WH.]
  That is simply not true; prisoners of war held by the Germans have been pressing their claims for some time. A price was therefore paid for achieving victory on behalf of the Japanese POWs.
  A parallel development is the establishment of a compensation scheme for forced labourers by the German authorities. In Germany, the principle has been established that German companies that benefited from forced labour should contribute to a compensation fund. That is a rather important philosophical principle, as those companies accepted that the profits earned from forced labour contributed substantially to their ability to invest after the war and their subsequent strengths. They have therefore accepted that they had a clear moral obligation. Compensation is now being paid under that scheme to 1 million former forced labourers, who have each received between £2,000 and £5,000. An international agency for migration is helping all those who were subject to forced labour or slave labour to receive the compensation to which they are entitled under the scheme.
  Until recently, POWs were exempt and were not entitled to claim under the scheme, but that has recently been relaxed and POWs are being allowed to claim, provided that they can claim that they were subject to concentration camp conditions, which is a rather narrow criterion that, so far, has excluded most of the British POWs. In some ways, the position is anomalous and

  599
  unfortunate, as British POWs working in German forced labour camps now appear to be the only remaining group that has had no recognition at all. Other POWs have been compensated. The Americans have a scheme whereby their POWs are paid the equivalent of $1 or $2.50 a day, depending on the type of work that they did during forced labour in the second world war. The Germans have a scheme for former members of the Wehrmacht.
  British POWs, however, have been left at the tender mercy of the benefits system and the disablement compensation system, which have often been extremely severe. They have therefore been left in a singular, exposed position, and considerable ill feeling has resulted. Why have British POWs in Germany been left out? That is the core of the issue. The argument has been advanced—by the Government, previous Governments and the British Legion, which has been ambivalent on the issue—that, unlike the Japanese POWs, those in Germany were subject to the Geneva convention. Of course, POWs themselves regard that as incorrect. Mr. Allan, who leads the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association, confronted that argument and said:
  "This is not true and well the MOD and other veteran organisations know this."
  It is a matter of considerable debate.
  Why were British POWs considered to be subject to the Geneva convention? First, it was believed that prisoners in German camps were not subject to the same degree of brutality as those in Japanese camps. The death rate was certainly lower and it is probably true, on average, that the degree of brutality was less. When we assess the extent to which the spirit of the convention was observed, it comes down to degrees of brutality. Some of the men, including those whom I am representing, experienced extremely brutal conditions, as bad as any in the second world war.
  Secondly, the British Government have taken the view that German prisoners who were kept in the UK as prisoners of war were also required to work, and were therefore subject to forced labour. It may be unhelpful to question the position of British POWs in Germany, as we operated a comparable system in the UK. That comes down to an assessment of whether German POWs in the UK were treated with anything like the same degree of severity as British POWs in Germany. Clearly, that is a value judgment and the evidence comes from people who were alive at the time. Without being in any way anti-German or unfair to the Germans, it could plausibly be argued that, qualitatively, there was a big difference in the way in which POWs were treated.
  Thirdly, it was argued that British POWs in Germany were paid. They were paid what was called Lagergeld—vouchers that could be exchanged for goods. When one reads the accounts of prisoners at that time, it becomes clear that that was often a mockery. Mr. Harding describes how, in his camp, he would present Lagergeld at the counters of the so-called shop, and he would be offered women's hair nets or razor blades without razors. It was used as a wind-up—an insult. It was not exchange in any meaningful sense.
  Many of the men had Lagergeld that was worthless and could not be exchanged. They were not paid in any meaningful sense. They suffered the double indignity and the double financial disadvantage that their pay was docked in the UK, because it was assumed that the German authorities were paying them. The National
  600
  Ex-Prisoner of War Association has asserted that the British Government were paid about £1 million at the end of the second world war by the Germans in lieu of the discrepancy between the payments. That payment was never made to the prisoners of war; it was simply absorbed in the Treasury. The association calculates that at present prices, that represents a loss of £120 million. The matter could usefully be investigated.
  Many of the prisoners of war who were subject to that experience felt that they were shafted by the Geneva convention. The convention has been used as a pretext for not offering them the recognition and compensation that they deserve. Many of them blame successive British Governments for the failure to take their case sufficiently seriously.
  In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether anything can be done at this stage. I realise that very few of the men are left alive, and probably not many of them are in a fit state to enjoy any compensation, should they receive it. We are speaking of very small numbers of people and very small sums of money. It is no longer a Treasury issue, but an issue of recognition, dignity and compensating people for real inhumanity. That is the spirit of it. I suspect that there is probably no more than one former POW in any constituency, so it is not a big political issue, but it is important for it to be recognised.
  I suggest two ways in which the Minister may be able to help us forward. The first would be for him to examine with the Germans, not in an acrimonious or accusatory manner, the way in which their POW compensation scheme is operating, and for him to make the case to them that many of the British POWs could be helped to apply under that scheme. Through the good offices of the Foreign Office and the Minister, it may be possible to make progress in that direction.
  The Under-Secretary could also pursue the matter without involving the Germans simply by treating the problem as a purely British one. On that basis, he could consider the issue of pay that was docked during the second world war but was never paid to the men. I do not know whether it was absorbed by the Treasury or what happened in the fiscal arrangements of 1945, but an injustice was clearly done. Purely at a UK level, some recompense and recognition could be given to the men in view of what occurred, so I ask him to consider as sympathetically as he can this dwindling but symbolically very important group of men.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), for their courtesy in allowing me to say a few words.
  When I heard the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham, I rushed to the Chamber. As he said, the subject of the debate relates to his constituent, but I suppose that it relates also to a few hundred other British ex-service men, one of whom I represent. John Stevens was in the Royal Navy and went down with HMS Gloucester off Crete, during the battle of Crete. I followed with him many a time the traumatic march that he made across Europe in appalling circumstances. He eventually ended up in the Farben chemical works, which was situated on the Auschwitz campus. He endured precisely the same problems as the hon. Gentleman described in relation to his constituent.

  601
  It has troubled me to know that, before I was a Member of Parliament. John Stevens exhaustively raised the matter with my predecessors, although I do not criticise their stewardship of it. I think that the problem was also raised with Malcolm Rifkind, among others, and that no satisfaction was gained.
  I speak only to buttress what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will assure us that he will revisit the issue. No doubt, he has his brief, but I hope that he will be prepared to indicate to the men that he is prepared to consider them again, perhaps individually. The conditions of my constituent's imprisonment and those of the hon. Gentleman's constituent demonstrably did not fit in with the Geneva convention. It simply did not happen. He is now a very sick man. I hope that, in view of what has been said, my hon. Friend will be prepared to consider the broad picture, as well as the position of my constituent and that of the hon. Member for Twickenham.
  7.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate on behalf of his constituent. I was, of course, happy to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
  The question of compensation for those held as prisoners of war is a matter in which a number of Departments are concerned. My reply will cover issues that also fall within the areas of responsibility of my colleagues, particularly at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and at the Department of Social Security.
  Attention in the House has recently focused almost exclusively on the circumstances surrounding the experiences of our service men who were detained in Japanese hands during the second world war—a matter that we addressed in detail last November. That discussion is recorded at columns 157 to 190 of the Official Report for 7 November 2000, when I announced the Government's decision to make an ex gratia payment in recognition of the collective experience of these men while they were detained.
  In the European and middle eastern theatres, the reverses of the early years of the war—in particular, the campaign in France and Flanders in 1940 and the later defeats in Greece, Crete and the western desert—resulted in a considerable number of our service men becoming prisoners of war of the Germans and their Italian partners. When Italy surrendered to the allies in the autumn of 1943, although some of our service men were able to escape from captivity and rejoin our forces as they advanced, many more were quickly detained by the German troops in Italy and then moved to camps in Germany and elsewhere in areas under German control.
  Although the tide of war had swung decisively in the allies' favour, there were still instances, most notably after Arnhem, when a considerable number of British service men became prisoners of war, so that by the end of the war, a total of 142,319 British service men had been reported as detained at some stage by the Germans or their Italian partners.
  602
  As I said in my statement to the House last November:
  "The Government recognise that many UK citizens, both those serving in the armed forces and civilians, have had to endure great hardship at different times and in different circumstances".—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 160.]
  I would like to repeat that comment now and apply it specifically to our service men detained in German hands. It is clear from personal accounts and the official records that conditions for those detained by the Germans were often less than ideal. That is especially true of those who were still prisoners of war in the last winter and spring of the war, when the breakdown in the German administrative system, the Germans' enforced movement of prisoners of war away from the advancing allied forces to prevent their liberation, the rigours of the weather and the dangers of the ever-nearing battlefield, made that a particularly hard experience.
  However, unlike civilian labourers who were conscripted or otherwise brought into the German labour scheme, the treatment of British service men detained as prisoners of war was protected: it was governed by the 1929 Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which Germany was a signatory.
  I want to expand on the terms of the Geneva convention because important aspects are sometimes overlooked when that subject, especially the aspect of work for the captor, is considered. Under the 1929 Geneva convention, which was in force during the second world war, prisoners of war of other ranks were obliged to undertake work for their captors; the latter were usually called the "detaining power." The convention required that the work should not be directly related to warlike or military activity. However, many other types of work, including mining and work in quarries, were permissible. Almost all the belligerent powers, including Britain and the USA, made use of that facility, and put enemy personnel held as prisoners of war to work on a range of tasks.
  I know that many prisoners of war were, and remain unhappy about some of the tasks they had to carry out and their general conditions. However, the report on prisoner of war matters, which the Foreign Office produced in 1950, concluded that,
  "there were few, if any, really clear breaches"
  of the Geneva convention relating to the employment of British prisoners of war in unhealthy and dangerous work.
  Although there were clearly instances of conditions in individual camps or working detachments that were less than ideal, through lack of facilities or because of the attitude of the guards or civilian overseers, those working detachments and camps were subject to inspection by both the neutral protecting power, Switzerland, and the International Red Cross. Those inspections meant that improper treatment or lack of proper facilities did not escape notice, censure and demands for remedial action wherever possible.
  The contemporary reports of those inspecting teams demonstrate that they were able to talk at first hand with the POWs' "man of confidence", medical officers or personnel to verify their perspective on the state of affairs against that put forward by the detaining power. Further, on re-inspecting various locations, improvements could often be seen in areas highlighted in earlier reports.
  Some former prisoners of war also raise the issue of the inadequacy of then rations. It is accepted that the rations provided by the Germans were based on the lower level

  603
  of those of a German civilian rather than that of their soldiers and, as the war turned against Germany, the quality of foodstuffs became even poorer.
  However, steps were taken to ensure that, while detained, British service men received Red Cross parcels of food and other "comforts" from the UK, which were valuable additions to the sometimes limited rations provided by the enemy. The Government played their part in supporting the Red Cross in that activity, while ensuring that they did nothing to encourage the Germans to evade their responsibilities under the convention to feed the prisoners of war by relying on the provision of such foodstuffs by Britain and its allies.
  Of course, while detained, British service men continued to receive their service pay from the British Government, usually credited to their home pay account. When they carried out work for the detaining power outside their military skills, as required by the Geneva convention, they were entitled to a certain amount of "working pay" from the Germans. In general, it is clear from contemporary records that that requirement was met by the Germans, the pay usually being credited to the prisoner of war working camp account or issued as camp money, the so-called Lagergeld. Any remaining credit balance in this German account was redeemable from the British authorities on the POWs' repatriation at the end of the war.
  It would be wrong for me to suggest that the scheme of inspections by the protecting power and the Red Cross, coupled with protests from Britain, were able to remedy all the shortcomings of the Germans' treatment of our service men at their hands. However, it is clear from the contemporary reports by the protecting power and the Red Cross who visited POW camps, including POW working detachments, that the conditions in such camps in the European theatre and the general treatment of British and Commonwealth POWs in such circumstances were in no way comparable to those of civilian personnel who were forced by the Germans to undertake labour tasks, and clearly in no way comparable to that of slave labourers in the German concentration camps and their outlying work camps.
  That view is supported not only by the contemporary reports from the inspection teams and from debriefings of our ex-prisoners of war, but by the hearings of one of the allied war crimes courts which considered the matter of the treatment of labourers at the IG Farben factory near Auschwitz. A POW working detachment, held in a routine POW working camp, also worked in the factory area. This brought the prisoners of war into contact with slave workers from the Nazi concentration camp nearby at Auschwitz. However, the court having heard the evidence, including testimony from ex-prisoners of war, found that the British POWs were generally treated better than other workers in all respects. [Interruption] I accept that that does not mean that they were treated well. However, they were treated differently and in a different order from civilians or detainees in a concentration camp.
  During the Nazi regime and the second world war, approximately 8 million people in German-controlled territory were subjected to forced labour under, for the most part, inhumane conditions. The German Government and German companies who used such labour have therefore created a new fund to compensate such
  604
  individuals. Claims by former slave and forced labourers now living in the United Kingdom are being administered by the International Organisation for Migration.
  The British service men detained by the Germans do not fall within the category of slave labourers, and the German authorities have made it clear that former prisoners of war do not qualify under the German forced labour compensation fund. While we accept that as a general point for the reasons that I have explained, we would not consider that claims could not be presented by British service personnel, but it would be remiss of me to encourage the belief that they might succeed. I would add that a small number of British service men detained in Nazi concentration camps received compensation under a special fund paid for by the Germans in the 1960s to victims of Nazi ideology.
  The Geneva convention itself did not specify any penalties on the detaining power for ill-treatment of prisoners of war or the imposition of bad conditions. We in the United Kingdom sought to address and deter ill-treatment and actions that clearly and wilfully breached the conventions and that broke the laws of war by bringing the individuals thought to be responsible to justice before war crimes courts.
  Further, as hon. Members will recall, it has been the long-standing policy of successive British Administrations not to compensate service men for the fact of detention as a prisoner of war, but rather to seek to help them through war disability pensions and appropriate health care where their health has suffered as a result of military service, which includes any period spent as a POW.
  I must remind hon. Members, as I told the House in November, that we believe that it is generally accepted that while endorsing this policy, the collective experience of those of our service men who were detained by the Japanese during the second world war was unique. That is reflected in the fact that about 25 per cent. of those prisoners of war in Japanese hands died while in captivity. I am happy to say, while not in any war minimising the anguish and problems of captivity, that the equivalent death rate for those detained in European camps in the second world war was about 5 per cent.
  It is because of the uniqueness of these circumstances that we instituted the ex gratia payment for British groups formerly detained by the Japanese which I announced last year. I regret to say that we have, however, no plans to make any such payment to former prisoners of war from other theatres from the second world war or from other wars.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the hon. Member for Twickenham. He has raised his constituent's point with great passion and sincerity. If I was presented with any new evidence, I would be very happy to consider it. Indeed, because of the interest in such historical matters, I frequently study such issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock quite rightly points out that there is great interest in such matters, and—who knows?—someone might turn something up. However, the record stands that this was very carefully looked into during the contemporary period immediately after the war, and I see no reason to change that position at present.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Renewable Energy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): I am pleased to open the debate and to set out our progress and the way forward to meeting our targets. By increasing the use of renewables, we can, first, reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and help to lessen the effect of climate change. Secondly, we can improve the security and diversity of our energy supplies. Thirdly, we can help Britain to move towards more sustainable forms of energy. However, renewable energy alone is not enough, but with reduced transport emissions, energy efficiency, increased use of combined heat and power and reductions in waste, it can play an important part in developing a more sustainable future. Experts predict that global emissions may need to be cut by 60 per cent. or more if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.
The Government have set a target to obtain 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables by the end of the decade. That target is challenging for the Government in setting the right policy framework and for industry in terms of delivery. It is estimated that it will result in a saving of about 2.5 million tonnes of carbon towards the United Kingdom's climate change commitments. We shall have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and turn more and more to non-fossil sources and energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The key role of renewables will be for the longer term, but it is important to establish a strong foothold for them in our energy sector over the next few years.
We are starting from a base of about 2.8 per cent. renewables in electricity generation in 1999 and we want to accelerate the rate of their deployment. At the end of last year, just under 350 live renewable projects were commissioned under the non-fossil fuel obligation—NFFO—with a capacity of 912 MW. In capacity terms, the top three technologies were landfill gas, energy from waste and wind energy. Taken together, they accounted for about 80 per cent. of the capacity installed under NFFO, which accounts for almost all the renewables projects commissioned in the United Kingdom so far.
We have made significant progress. We announced our intention to impose an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers, which will increase availability and use of electricity from renewable sources. We are developing a series of regional strategies and targets for renewables. We are consulting on a streamlined consents process for offshore energy. We have played a full part in the negotiations on the European Commission directive on renewable energy to help to make it a practicable instrument. We have introduced new electricity trading arrangements and published a
132WH
report from the embedded generation working group. In a couple of months, we shall review how well NETA is working to ensure fair and equitable treatment for renewables and CHP under NETA. I attach great importance to that and was discussing it only this afternoon with the regulator, Callum McCarthy, on behalf of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets.
The first United Kingdom offshore wind turbines and the first energy crops power plant have been commissioned. Last month, I announced the freeing up of NFFO contracts to move to other locations when planning difficulties are encountered at the original site. That will ensure that many more proposals are brought to fruition. 1 also made provision to safeguard NFFO contracts in future.
On 1 April, we implemented exemption of renewables electricity from the climate change levy, which is another important driver. In recent months, we have announced a package of direct support of more than £260 million for renewable energy over this and the next two years, including more than £100 million for offshore wind and energy crops, £100 million for green energy projects recently announced by the Prime Minister, £10 million for solar energy and more than £50 million for research and development. That represents a serious move forward by the Government to give real impetus and support to renewable energy, from research and development and scientific exploration right through to production.
That support is additional to the market for renewables that is being created mainly by the renewables obligation, which represents sales of perhaps £1 billion a year and will require investments of £3 billion or more. That will undoubtedly bring renewables right into the mainstream of our energy industry and can be expected to lead to more jobs in that important sector. Today's announcement of proposed offshore wind projects of up to 1,500 MW capacity will in itself lead to investment of £1.5 billion if all 18 sites are developed as planned. I shall return to that in a moment.
The British Wind Energy Association estimates that the demand for wind turbines could create up to 35,000 manufacturing jobs, many of them using the expertise that is already well developed in Britain because of the offshore gas and oil exploration and development industry. Such experience, expertise and, in some cases, jobs, can be transferred to the important offshore wind initiative.
I saw for myself, as a Foreign Office Minister, how photovoltaic installations could transform the lives of communities in Africa that were otherwise without any electricity. They have huge potential in schools, hospitals and clinics in remote areas and could bring much-needed modern education and health care to people who would otherwise have only much more basic facilities, or none at all. Driving forward PV solar on the African continent is an anti-poverty initiative, and renewables can help to alleviate poverty and improve quality of life for vast numbers of people. It is a sobering thought that, outside South Africa, only 9 per cent. of Africans have access to electricity—533 million do not. Frankly, there is no prospect of them getting access unless they have stand-free energy sources, of which PV solar is an ideal example.

133WH
I am delighted that our Government are taking a leading role in the G8 countries' renewable energy taskforce, which reports to the G8 in the summer. In just 15 months, that is really good progress that demonstrates the Government's strong commitment to renewable energy, of which I regard myself as a champion. We are delivering, and the work to drive forward the renewables agenda is a top priority for me.
Our most important single instrument is the renewables obligation, which is scheduled to begin in October. It means that licensed suppliers will be obliged to provide a specified proportion of their power from renewables in future—10 per cent. renewables by the end of the decade. The obligation will provide an assured market for renewables from the autumn, lasting right through until 2026, and offer industry an established framework, market stability and confidence, so that investment can take place at a faster pace and on a larger scale.
Through the renewables obligation, the renewables market is expected to be worth £1 billion a year or more by 2010. That is big business in anyone's terms. I would advise any British company waiting for the details of the obligation to be finalised before they decide on new investments to be quick off the mark and get ahead of the competition. I recently met representatives from oil and gas companies and was pleased that they were so positive about the prospects for renewables for their companies, principally in terms of transferring their experience and expertise to a new environment. They have business and engineering skills that are extremely valuable in the further development of renewables—for instance, in offshore wind energy and wave energy.
Some technologies, such as hydro, landfill gas and onshore wind energy, are already well developed commercially. Others have reached the commercial demonstration stage: offshore wind and energy crops fall into that category. Others, such as wave power, need further research before large-scale commercial deployment is possible. I recently gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, which is looking into prospects for wave energy and tidal stream, and I look forward to its report. At this early stage, we are working hard to support companies and universities that are researching wave energy in the hope that that may prove to be a useful and commercial source of energy, which I am sure it can be.
We are expecting a significant contribution to the 10 per cent. target from offshore wind and energy crops, and we shall part-fund early demonstration schemes for those two technologies. It is encouraging that each has one project on stream. Off Blyth, we have the UK's first two offshore wind turbines, while the Arbre project at Eggborough is based on energy crops.
Green, clean energy is the future. Rapid development of offshore wind farms is a key element in the Government's strategy for renewable energy. I am extremely pleased by the news that we heard earlier today from the Crown Estate of the great success of the first competition for sites for offshore wind farms. Indeed, 18 proposed developments have passed the pre-qualification stage, which means that they have satisfied the Crown Estate of their financial viability and have
134WH
been offered an option on a site. If those proposals go ahead as planned, which I hope they will, the combined generating capacity will be between 1,000 MW and 1,500 MW. That represents a huge increase in renewable generating capacity, which would be more than doubled and, indeed, nearly trebled.
The Government have given a clear green signal that wind energy is the way forward. Now, 18 offshore wind developers are ready to invest in providing green energy for Britain. The streamlined consents procedure will take away the hassle of making those projects happen, and each one will contribute the equivalent of about 50,000 households' supply. In total, they will provide the equivalent of about 1 million households' total energy use, which is a significant contribution to our agenda of reaching the 10 per cent. target by the end of the decade.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that another issue that will enable us to go even further in developing renewable energy capacity is the need to modernise the energy industry's infrastructure, which was highlighted in the embedded generation working group report published in January? Is he aware of the problems that some wind developers have had with infrastructure? Last year, for example, a proposal was made for a wind farm on the Isle of Wight, but the local distribution company presented the developer with a bill to upgrade the grid capacity on the site that could have reached more than £1 million. Does my hon. Friend accept that that long-term issue must be tackled if we are to develop greater renewable capacity?
Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed I do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's active stewardship of the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy, a recent meeting of which I attended. I expected to meet the usual Back-Bench committee of a dozen Members of Parliament, half of whom leave to go off and vote or do something more important. However, there was standing room only, even though the meeting was in the Thatcher Room. There were 80 or 90 people from the industry and non-governmental organisations in the Room, and the initiative and energy that my hon. Friend puts into the group is welcome.
My hon. Friend's substantive point, of which we are aware, is real and important. If we manage to drive forward embedded generation renewable energy in such a way as will be necessary to meet the target, we shall need five to six times the number of connections to the wider transmission and distribution system. That will require a more proactive and sympathetic attitude from the industry, about which I have spoken to Ofgem. Indeed, a specific issue that I raised this afternoon with Callum McCarthy, its head, is that no renewable energy project or developer should face the kind of obstructionism to which my hon. Friend referred, and of which we are well aware. If hon. Members hear of such obstacles, please let me know and we shall see what we can do.
We are supporting offshore wind farms through the new renewables obligation and through capital grants worth up to £49 million. That is just the beginning. We will take offshore wind from the margins into the mainstream, helping to contribute to cleaner, greener energy. We must move away from the "not in my back yard" attitude that still prevails over onshore wind projects.

135WH
We must make serious choices about our future energy sources. Developers can help enormously by selecting sites more sensitively, taking account of local concerns, and through being prepared to modify their plans. Offering flexibility to NFFO contracts that have had planning difficulties, allowing them to be sited elsewhere, will lead to a rapid increase in deployment. I do not want any project to trample over local opinion, and each must conform to the highest environmental and planning standards. However, if we want cleaner, greener energy, every community in Britain must take its responsibilities and duties seriously.
Mr. David Chaytor: I want to raise the controversial issue of onshore wind farms in environmentally sensitive areas. A place near my home in the Pennines has a view of two major wind farms and a planning application is pending for a wind farm that lies in the other direction. The issue has preoccupied me for many years, and I have been involved in previous controversies over planning applications for Pennine wind farms.
Does the Minister agree that a move towards wind turbines rather than wind farms might overcome problems with developing renewable energy in environmentally sensitive areas Environmental concerns might be fewer if it were easier for individuals in rural areas, not just farmers, to have individual turbines in their gardens or on their land, from which output would be lower than from a major wind farm.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Even in the relative informality of Westminster Hall, that intervention is becoming extremely long. If the hon. Gentleman wants to develop an argument, he should seek to catch my eye later in the debate.
Mr. Hain: I get the gist of my hon. Friend's argument. I cannot comment on the examples that are near to his home, but, in general, I suspect that future generations will look back at controversy over wind farm sites and wonder what all the fuss was about. They will be part of our landscape and seascape and we will be pleased to have them. Although it is important to take local wishes into account, we should not allow a NIMBYist stance to impose a veto on onshore wind farm developments. However, I encourage my hon. Friend's suggestion that individual farms, and perhaps companies and factories, could have their own local windmills. The current regulatory regime and direction of policy would support such a move.
We have made changes that will aid the resolution of problems such as that in the Pennines: allowing wind farms to be sited off the top of mountain and hill ranges; the NFFO transportable initiative, which allows developments to be sited in places that are less environmentally sensitive; and the reduction of buy-up prices. There will be less commercial pressure to place projects at the highest point to gain the most benefit from the wind. Our initiative has been designed with such aims in mind.
Mr. Chaytor: I shall be brief. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would not the introduction of net metering for individual households constitute an important policy
136WH
change that would expand use of individual wind turbines? That is what is needed to give households the incentive to construct their own wind turbines.
Mr. Hain: I shall not be led down the path of discussing individual metering—even by such an engaging Member as my hon. Friend—because that is a separate matter. However, I take his point and acknowledge his interest and involvement in renewable energy, which is well respected in the House.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of developments in underwater current turbine technology, involving inverting offshore wind turbines and placing them under, rather than above, the sea? Is that not the perfect solution for those who object to the sight of a blade anywhere? Is he also aware that the conversion rate of underwater current technology is far greater than that of turbine-to-air technology, and is his Department actively pursuing that option?
Mr. Hain: Yes, we are. Indeed, I discussed the matter with the Science and Technology Committee when I recently appeared before it. My hon. Friend's description is absolutely right—an offshore wind turbine is like a windmill turned on its head, as it were. In essence, it is a tidal stream project involving technology that allows us to take maximum advantage of movement in the tide. The problem is that the technology and the projects themselves are in their infancy. However, because the technology has great potential—particularly off the shores of Britain, where there are many ideal sites—we are supporting research, development and scientific and technological advance in a number of ways.
The renewables obligation is clearly the right way forward. We get the benefit of a Government-set framework, with all the added value that the market can bring in selecting which technologies to deploy in implementing the obligation and helping to meet targets. With the obligation in prospect, and given other measures and funding that we have set in train, I believe that renewables are well placed to grow rapidly in this country in the coming decade and beyond. I want British technology, expertise and scientific advance to lead the way, so that we can set an example to the world.
2.52 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: I begin by declaring an interest. Last summer, I visited the United States to meet oil industry representatives, the regulator and the Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, at the expense of a consortium of oil companies. This autumn, I joined the all-party group that is concerned with energy and renewables on a trip to Denmark, led by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), to see wind energy at first hand. National Wind Power paid for the trip.
Denmark produces some 13 per cent. of its electricity through wind energy, and every other field contains two or three wind turbines. In keeping with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), one or two wind turbines scattered throughout farmland do not look as bad as a densely populated wind farm. The technology is expensive, but there is clearly something attractive about a system that produces electricity for

137WH
nothing, other than the capital outlay and small maintenance costs. We welcome the Minister's announcement and the Crown Estate's decision to issue licences for turbines on certain offshore sites around the UK. We are beginning to see the glimmer of an emerging energy policy.
Everyone is surely in favour of the concept of renewable energy, but the problem is the cost. Electricity is the foundation of a modern, developed economy and will continue to be so. Any significant increase in the price of electricity will, therefore, have a serious effect on the economy as a whole and the standard of living of us all. Of course, it is always those at the bottom of the income scale who suffer most from a reduction in living standards in the economy as a whole.
We must do as much as possible to take advantage of renewables and develop systems that provide incentives for renewables and renewable technology to be developed, so that the cost per unit can fall towards market spot prices. However, if we believe that renewables are the answer to meeting future international climate change obligations, we are living in make-believe land. The facts are harsh. As the Minister said, only 2.8 per cent. of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, and the vast majority of that is represented by hydro-electricity. The Government have set a target of 5 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2003, which effectively means doubling the capacity of renewable energy in 20 months. As most of that capacity is hydro, that means a colossal increase in wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy regimes, and not enough plans are on the drawing boards for completion in 20 months' time to deliver that.
The next target, of 10 per cent. by 2010, seems sufficiently far away to be achievable, but industry experts say that it is not. The Government's obligation includes a nice table that shows how the target will be achieved over a period of years. It is easy to draft such a table, but difficult to deliver what it shows. However, even if that target is achieved, the Government's own figures show that achieving it will add 3.7 per cent. to the cost of electricity generation, which would increase exponentially if the percentage target were raised.
The Minister touched on the Royal Society's demands for a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions as necessary to affect the climate. However, even if the 10 per cent. renewables target is met, the Government will be way behind their target of reducing CO2 emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. According to the Government's own figures in the climate change programme document, Cm 4913, CO2 emissions in 2000 were 8.2 per cent. below 1990 levels, falling to 8.4 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010, but rising again thereafter to reach only 4.4 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2020. According to page 52 of the climate change programme, those figures
"include the emission reductions expected from some policies that the Government has introduced since Kyoto, such as the climate change levy, the fuel duty escalator to 1999, and the 10 per cent. renewables target."
Therefore, even if the 10 per cent. renewables target is met, according to the figures CO2 emissions will still rise from 2010. However, I suspect that CO2 emissions will rise next year as the Magnox decommissioning takes off.
138WH
It is interesting to witness how the Government assiduously manipulate all Government figures that have a political content. The draft climate change programme that was published last year showed a 9.4 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels in CO2 emissions in 2000, but a 7 per cent. reduction in 2010. According to the Government's projections in that draft, therefore, CO2 levels rose in this Parliament, under this Government. Lo and behold, in the final climate change programme. the 9.4 per cent. becomes 8.2 per cent., and the 7 per cent. becomes 8.4 per cent. In other words, CO2 levels are still falling in this Parliament under this Government, but only just, and some assumptions seem to have changed between the two drafts of the climate change programme
Many Opposition Members need to understand why those figures were published, and growing anxiety is being expressed about the integrity of facts and figures in the Government's documents and parliamentary answers. That requires urgent action. The Red Book provides an example of the manipulation of the CO2 figures. The section on the climate change programme refers to several blue-sky policy proposals, such as a reform of building regulations, and if the consultation proposals are fully implemented it is predicted that there will be a 1.3 million tonne reduction in CO2 emissions. Similar early-stage policy proposals are set out in the accompanying table and, lo and behold, their estimated effect is to produce a 19 per cent. reduction in the 1990 figures for CO2 emissions. That figure does not quite reach the 20 per cent. target, but it is sufficiently high to acquire a flavour of credibility and it is the figure that the Red Book highlights, rather than the 4.4 per cent. figure that is also mentioned. That will not wash, and it feeds the public's mistrust of any advice or facts, particularly on scientific issues, that emanate from the Government.
I will now return to the projections that CO2 emissions are rising, which are based on Great Britain achieving its 10 per cent. renewables target. Those figures are founded on assumptions about electricity use over the next 20 years. On 19 March 2001, at the Chamber of Commerce conference in Washington in the United States of America, Spencer Abraham, the new Secretary of Energy, delivered an excellent and wide-ranging speech on the importance of having an energy policy. That is a matter that the Minister is, at last, beginning to ponder. In his speech, Abraham made a particularly important point:
"Over the next 20 years, the Department of Energy estimates that electricity demand in the United States will increase by 45 percent … Furthermore, there is reason to believe that this could turn out to be a conservative estimate. During the 1990s, electricity consumption far outstripped projections, driven by the energy-hungry information economy. Some experts calculate that the demands of the Internet already consume some 8–13 percent of electricity."
Great Britain might experience a greater increase in demand, as internet use in our country is not yet as advanced as it is in the USA, but we are heading in the same direction. I think that the Government's projections are based on figures that underestimate electricity demand. If that is the case, we would experience a significant rise in CO2 emissions. Renewables could not adequately compensate for that, unless the Government introduced a significant hike in electricity prices, which would cause huge damage to our economy. Yet, we could generate all our energy

139WH
from renewable sources, if we were prepared to pay double or triple for our electricity. The Government have not yet addressed how they intend to respond to that matter.
The Government have also failed to address the consequences of the decommissioning of the ageing Magnox nuclear power station. Nuclear energy saves the equivalent of half of all CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. Therefore, the decommissioning of nuclear power stations will have a huge impact on future environmental policy. The Government have not yet developed a realistic strategy to address that. Their only major pronouncement on energy policy has been the energy White Paper on the gas moratorium, which has resulted in millions of tonnes of carbon being released into the atmosphere.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What are the hon. Gentleman's plans for an energy policy? How does he propose that we should respond to the challenge of the reduction in nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2020? I invite the hon. Gentleman to engage in fantasy politics. If he were to become the Minister responsible for energy following the next election, would he strike a deal with the shadow Chancellor to ensure that, despite his party's plan to make £16 billion of savings, he will not cut the £260 million that is available for renewable energy projects at the moment?
Mr. Gibb: None of the figures in the Red Book will be altered, apart from the £8 billion of savings that my party has clearly explained. Savings will not be made in the area under discussion.
The best way to deal with emissions is to enhance the use of the market. The Government propose a complex emissions trading system, but it should be simplified. That would harness market forces and ensure that we employ the most cost-effective way of introducing renewable energy.
Dr. Whitehead: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's exposition, but I am not entirely clear about the conclusions of his analysis of the feasibility of renewables and climate change targets. Is he suggesting that those targets should be repudiated, as the American Government have suggested, and that, inter alia, the Kyoto protocol should be abandoned? Is he saying that his party, were they in power, would support those targets but seek to achieve them by other means?
Mr. Gibb: We are clear about our view of Kyoto. We would stick by and deliver any international obligations into which we have entered. After all, it was Conservatives who went to Rio and agreed all the initial arrangements. It was not a Labour initiative. We are fully behind reductions in CO2 emissions and the programme dealing with climate change concerns.
The Government are coming out with a huge amount of humbug. The decommissioning of the Magnox nuclear power stations will present Britain with a large problem. We can meet our Kyoto targets in 2008–12 because of the move to gas-fired power stations over the past 10 or 20 years, not because of some great achievement by the Labour Government. With all the scientific evidence at their disposal, it is up to the
140WH
Government to devise a strategy for how they will deal with the decommissioning of Magnox. They have been in power for four years without producing an answer to this key question.
Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gibb: If I may, I will finish.
We believe strongly in what we have coined as a blue-green agenda, which means using the market to encourage development of more environmentally friendly energy generation. However, we do not pretend or kid ourselves that renewable energy and energy efficiency will deliver the reduction in CO2 sufficient to deliver the Government's 20 per cent. target, especially with the decommissioning of Magnox. It is a harsh reality of elected office that the Government must devise a strategy to tackle the problem that does not involve simply manipulating the presentation of figures so targets appear to be met. We need real answers to these real issues. The Government should tell us that they intend to develop a full energy policy, of which we heard the glimmerings today.
3.6 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: I am almost lost for words after listening to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I must remind him that we have always regarded humbug as a monopoly held by the Conservative party, and he has just demonstrated why that is so.
The end of the Magnox reactors has been approaching for years, yet I do not remember hearing a word from the previous Government about plans to meet that eventuality. I remember no targets or obligations for renewable energy production from the previous Government, and no recognition that a real problem was on its way. That is why I am lost for words.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Is not my hon. Friend being too generous to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb)? Does he recall that the previous Government axed the research funding for wave energy projects? Does he remember the plan to reduce research funding for renewables in general from some £15 million at the end of their term to some £11 million if they had stayed in office?
Dr. Turner: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. I was going to come to the sad decline in wave energy under the previous Government when I reached the point of making my own remarks, as opposed to responding to those of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
I want to focus on the potential for wave and tidal energy. The Science and Technology Committee has taken evidence on this topic. My comments do not represent a preview of our report, but my personal reflections on the evidence that we have taken, which has impressed me deeply.
In the UK we have allowed ourselves to be self-disadvantaged. We sat with plenty of cheap carbon fuel on our doorsteps and revelled in it. We did nothing to address the approaching end of cheap carbon fuel, let alone the environmental consequences of depending on the carbon fuel economy.

141WH
At the end of the previous Labour Government, wave energy research was starting promisingly in this country and we were world leaders in such research. Shortly after the Thatcher Administration came to power, the plug was pulled on the research because of market pressures—there was not an obvious market for it. That Government had a short-sighted attitude towards the economics of power, which, regrettably, the Opposition do not appear to have grown out of.
There was a loss of impetus about renewables. For instance, we missed the boat on wind power. In contrast, Denmark was worried because it did not have cheap carbon fuel on its doorstep and had to look for alternatives. It took the lead on wind power, developed it as a commercial proposition and now leads the world in the production of wind turbines. It exports about 90 per cent. of the world's wind turbines and that industry has grown with the creation of 15,000 jobs. Denmark saw energy as a challenge, not a market by-product.
Even if carbon fuel continued to be cheap, there would be enormous environmental costs in continuing to depend on it. We desperately need the green revolution, to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech.
Our country has superb renewables assets. We have wind—quite a lot of it—but wind energy is limited because wind is unpredictable. We have fantastic energy sources in waves and tides. One of the world's best energy resources is available on our western seas and could be developed by our science base, which is equal to that task. Fortunately, it managed to survive the deprivation of the Thatcher years and even Professor Salter is still in Edinburgh and back in business with wave energy. It was pleasant to hear his evidence.
Our assets of exploitable energy should not be underestimated; they are enormous. If wave or tide is fully exploited, there is the potential to produce sufficient electrical energy to satisfy the country's entire needs. Obviously, it would take a little time to develop that, but the natural energy potential is there. That potential is very predictable. Weather forecasting can tell us pretty accurately what type of waves we will get. However, tidal streams are wonderful. They are totally predictable and operate like clockwork. One knows exactly what the flows will be at any given time and at any point around our coasts. They could be used precisely to deliver a baseline power load in the manner that nuclear power stations do. If a replacement is needed for Magnox reactors, look no further than fully implemented tidal stream power.
I shall address the point of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about cost. He tried to tell us that renewables were too expensive and that their use would hurt our economy because the price of the electricity supply might go up by a few per cent. He is ignoring one point—once technologies are exploited on a truly commercial scale, the costs come rocketing down. Wind energy is a perfect example. When the Danes started with wind turbines, the generation costs were approximately 13p a kW hour—which is very expensive—so the Danes used subsidies to encourage is development. Now, the cost is less than 3p, which is
142WH
competitive with fossil fuels. As far as wave and tidal power is concerned, the estimated costs for present planned demonstrating machines are already down to approximately 5.5p per kW hour. If fully exploited, the projected costs are 2p per kW hour—well within the current commercial range. The hon. Gentleman's arguments on cost do not stand examination. He is looking at the issue from a very short-term perspective. To do that is to be doomed to failure, because we would use only what is immediately to hand and never reach out for something that is only a little further away, but well worth having.
If we throw our energy into the development of wave and tidal power, the prize is immense and well worth having: clean, predictable energy and a new manufacturing industry with enormous export potential. It could create thousands of jobs and last for at least 50 years, or the foreseeable future. We cannot afford to miss that opportunity.
What is the Government's role? We need to examine that this afternoon. Fortunately, since the glorious revolution of 1997, there has been a change in Government policy towards renewables. It was a little slow in coming, but that is in the nature of the Department of Trade and Industry, which two years ago was still making assessments that tidal stream energy would be of no interest for 30 years. There is plenty of evidence to dispute that. The DTI is starting to change its tune.
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, which we could reasonably expect to support research into the issue, is, frankly, being rather feeble. It is pathetic that the EPSRC is putting so little money into wave and tide research compared with wind and photovoltaic projects. We were appalled to hear from representatives of the EPSRC that they did not fund any tidal stream projects. We were also worried when one of our Committee advisers told us immediately afterwards, "They are funding a project in my department so they do not know what they are doing".
Given the order of ascendancy of the availability of natural resources in this country, it is extraordinary that we should be funding wave and tidal power in inverse proportion to its availability. We must urgently revise those priorities and do all that we can to bring on wave and tide energy. We have the technology, which is not as much in its infancy as it might be thought. Indeed, different demonstrator machines are going to sea. More will be joining them over the next few years, so the technology is ready for exploitation.
We have another great advantage in this country. Thanks to the history of the North sea oil industry, we have a great deal of engineering expertise that can cope with the rigours of the marine environment. That is no longer a problem. No technical barrier exists to exploiting wind and tidal power. It is a question of getting on with it.
I want the Government to give a clear, unambiguous lead, as the Danish Government gave a lead to Danish industry, which led to development of the wind turbine industry in Denmark. The Government need to set more ambitious targets and obligations—a target of 10 per cent. is highly achievable. We need to aim for a much higher target thereafter. A target of 30 per cent. by 2020 should be attainable. Once we have commercially

143WH
useable machinery, it is merely a question of installing it. If there is a market, industry will invest and machinery will be installed.
Targets are essential, but I would question one aspect of the Government's targets, which include energy from waste and biomass. A non-carbon target should be set, which would be a further driver towards developing the kind of technologies to take us out of the carbon economy altogether. That is what we need for the long-term future.
A good slice of the Prime Minister's £100 million should be allocated to wave and tide. That is essential. The Government should give grant aid to the production and testing of commercial prototypes, which will allow them to get off the ground. The lessons to be learned from real exploration in the sea can therefore be used.
The Government need to do all that they can to ease the granting of planning consents. Happily, the Minister mentioned that point. One of the tidal stream experimenters to whom we spoke described his difficulties in trying to obtain consents to put trial machines in the Solent. Seven bodies had to be consulted, which would have taken two years, so he gave up and went elsewhere. Other experimenters will go to Iceland to install their prototype machines rather than install one in Britain. That is bad. It does not help the development of the industry in this country. Streamlining is, therefore, needed.
Fortunately, the Minister referred to the problems of the grid. One of the unhappy aspects of wave and tidal power is that the best natural resources and most obvious sites for exploitation are where the grid is at its weakest. The Government will have to engage in hard negotiation with the National Grid Company, and perhaps even invest with it to beef up those connections.
Another step that the Government could take, which is easily attainable and would cost a modest sum, is to establish a national test centre with a grid connection. That would allow companiesx2014;which are normally small and medium-sized enterprises—to install their machines on the seabed or wherever is appropriate at the location, connect them to the grid and put them to the test. At the moment, there is a danger that those companies will go elsewhere—Iceland, Portugal and even Denmark, which has established such a centre. It would cost only an estimated £10 million to establish such a centre which would be extremely useful and productive.
From all that I have gleaned, both technologies are ready to begin the process of exploitation. Their costs are about 5½p per kW hour, but it is predicted that they could decrease to less than 2p per kW hour when the technologies are fully exploited. The history of technological development suggests that that would be no more than an average performance profile for a new technology, so we can probably depend on those figures.
The environmental impact of wave or tidal stream energy is much less than those of land-based wind farms or any other renewable. We would hardly see something that had been placed a mile or two offshore. If it were a tidal stream turbine, we would see a little pole standing a few feet above the water, depending on the type of machine. With other possibilities, we would see nothing. The technology has everything going for it.
144WH
We have a golden opportunity that British industry will not have again in a long time, and we would be an extremely foolish nation to let it pass. Tidal stream and wave energy give us an opportunity to escape from the carbon-fuel economy, dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and produce totally clean energy. Unlike burning biomass or energy from waste, with which there are potential pollution and environmental impact problems, there are no emission problems with tidal stream or wave energy. They could be used to provide baseline supply and so replace ageing Magnox reactors. They give us an opportunity to grow a new manufacturing industry for the 21st century. The Government need to give a lead to this country and the rest of world.
There is an international dimension, because those technologies could be exploited in many parts of the third world. There is a real fear that industrialised economies in the rest of the world will continue to increase CO2 emissions, but there are technologies that could be used to help avoid that. We must grasp that fantastic opportunity and act vigorously now to make the best of it.
3.28 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome today's announcement of 18 new sites available for wind farms and their potential to provide 1 per cent. of the total electricity supply. That 1 per cent. is balanced by the expectation that electricity use will rise by 1 per cent. In the next 15 years, but the announcement is still a welcome and long overdue boost to a fledgling industry.
In the past, getting permission to build wind farms was a stupidly convoluted process. Anyone who has read The Guardian today will know that consent was needed under the Electricity Act 1989, the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Most amazing is the length of time that it has taken finally to tidy up that process. Wrapping up an industry in red tape is certainly not a way of encouraging it to thrive, as I am sure any small business would tell the Minister. Will a maximum time be allowed for processing planning consents and, if so, what will it be?
According to the Department of Trade and Industry's digest of UK energy statistics, only 1.3 per cent. Of British energy is produced through renewable energy sources, which is both a challenge and an opportunity. The contribution of wind farms to increasing that proportion is an important, but small, step. When does the Minister expect wind farms to be up and running? How much will they contribute to the target of 10 per cent. renewable energy by 2010? Presumably, the hon. Gentleman has estimated when the wind farms will come on stream and how many will do so. There are planning consents for 18 sites, but there must be an estimate of how many are likely to proceed. The Government will have factored those assumptions into their plan for achieving the reduction target of 10 per cent. by 2010.
Renewables have the potential to be a huge growth industry, and now is the time when they need the most Govt support. The development and success of the

145WH
renewables industry has an integral role in tackling climate change and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which damage the environment.
As a nation, we have started to take responsibility for our actions as the evidence mounts of the damage that we are doing to our environment. George Bush may want to bury his head in the sand about global warming, but it is starting to have a huge impact on our lives, our children's lives and those of people in many other countries, and we must take action now. Reducing our share of greenhouse gas emissions by using alternative energy sources is a vital part of that action.
The United Kingdom has an obligation to reduce its output of greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. in the period 2008 to 2012, which is the Kyoto target. The Government have promised to do even better: to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. Those are noble aspirations but, as a report in the Financial Times stated in February, according to Cambridge Econometrics the Government expect to miss the target by a considerable distance. Liberal Democrats agree with the higher target; Kyoto is just the beginning. As the Minister said, in the long term it is vital that emissions are reduced more significantly than that, to 60 per cent. or thereabouts. That is why the strategy should go beyond 2010 if we want to achieve the target set by the royal commission of 60 per cent. by 2050.
We have an effective strategy to tackle climate change that we believe could achieve emission levels of 50 per cent. of 1990 levels within 40 years—the document is in the public domain, on the Liberal Democrats' website. It is possible for 20 per cent. of electricity supplies to be provided by renewables within the next 10 years. If I had been on a sponsored trip to visit the oil companies in the United States, I might have thought that the target of 20 per cent. was not realistic, but we have set out clearly how it can be achieved.
Today's announcement is a start, but it is not enough. Now that the Government have sorted out the planning restrictions, are they willing to reconsider their targets for renewables, as one hon. Member suggested, and to go for more ambitious targets? If planning consent was a major brake on the expansion of the renewable energy industry, now that the brake is off, there is scope for a much more ambitious target. As I said earlier, there is potential for enormous and sustainable growth over the next 50 years. That growth will create additional jobs, which is good not only for the economy but for the environment. The development of renewables should be seriously considered.
There are no simple answers. The renewables industry faces many challenges. It is not a dream solution that will solve all our problems overnight. For instance, as other hon. Members have pointed out, some renewable industries create their own pollution. It is regrettable that so much emphasis is put on creating energy from waste. The Government should remember that many—hon. Members and members of the public—have expressed concern about the potential for growth in incineration and our capacity to create energy from waste. The Government should certainly not take that route to deliver its 10 per cent. target for renewables. Their priority should be the development of more
146WH
environmentally friendly parts of the industry, such as wind and wave energy, as other hon. Members have suggested.
The Government should aim for a target of 10 per cent. of our energy coming from renewable energy sources within the UK. They have not requested that that target should be delivered with renewable energy created within the UK. We suggest a target of a 1 per cent. increase in renewable energy from 2010 onwards. We want to see clear progress being made beyond 2010. We want the target to be met in 2010, but we want to be sure that plans are made long before then for what should happen afterwards.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) illustrated the failure of the previous Conservative Administration to tackle the problem. At the end of their term of office, we were at the bottom of the EU league table for renewable energy. The hon. Gentleman should consult more widely with electricity suppliers. A few weeks ago I visited Unit E, an electricity supply company, which told me that it expected soon to have a renewable energy product on the market that would cost no more than normal electricity. The reason on is because an admittedly small group of domestic users actively search for renewable energy sources. Because people are willing to search, the electricity company can reduce its advertising costs. It believes that it will be able to offset those reduced costs against the slightly increased cost of electricity generated from renewable sources. The customer should, therefore, see no difference in price. I hope it comes forward with that product soon. It is a large company and could make a significant difference to the renewable energy market in the UK.
We have a long way to go to catch up and meet the targets. I hope that the Minister will set out a longer-term time frame and say what targets the Government are beginning to work on to take us beyond 2010 and the 10 per cent. target. I hope that the Minister can muster his green Ministers to press for renewable energy within their respective Departments. If the electricity company to which I referred can supply renewable energy to domestic customers at the same price as normal energy, it may be able to supply it for much larger consumers of electricity.
The renewable energy industry is in a lucky position. It has the opportunity to give a lot back to society while remaining profitable, which is good for us all. I hope that it will rise to the challenge, and that the Government will help the industry to do so.
3.40 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Two years ago I was lucky enough to be at Wembley stadium as Scott Gibbs scored a magnificent try for Wales and the peerless Neil Jenkins kicked the conversion to see Wales beat England by one point—a fantastic and wonderful day. Today's announcement that 18 sites have been identified and that developers are in a position to take advantage of them is similarly great news for those who have been advocating the benefits of offshore wind power.
To take the rugby analogy further, the win against England was one isolated victory, but in future I do not want only to hope that Wales might beat France; I want

147WH
to know by how many points France and other teams will be beaten. Similarly, I am not satisfied with the knowledge that 18 sites have been earmarked for offshore wind; I want to know that many more wind sites will follow and that there are also plans to develop capacity for other forms of renewable energy.
I join the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in declaring my visit to Denmark last year. His speech was notable for its lack of any solutions to the challenge of climate change. He made no attempt to suggest what Britain's energy policy should be. When he reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow, I hope that he will be embarrassed by the fact that it was effectively a tour around the annexes of various Government consultation documents.
The hon. Gentleman is, however a nice and intelligent chap. After the general election, when the cull of shadow Cabinet Ministers takes place, he is my candidate for the Trade and Industry job. He must recognise that he will not be able to hide then as he has sought to hide today behind Government statistics. He will have to be clearer about his plans for renewable energy in particular and energy policy in general.
Sustainable energy is where the market meets the environment. This new industry can advance the causes of modernisation, sustainable development and social justice; help manufacturing and industrial competitiveness; create significant new employment opportunities, particularly in manufacturing and engineering industries; offer alternative sources of income for hard-pressed rural areas, and provide huge opportunities for business from the growing world markets for renewables.
My hon. Friend the Minister touched on the environmental imperative, which should drive renewable energy capacity expansion, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) touched on the regrettable actions of George Bush in repudiating the Kyoto treaty. Despite that, pressure will grow to go beyond the 5.2 per cent. greenhouse gas emission levels currently on the table under Kyoto.
A recent report by the insurers, Munich Re, for the United Nations Environment Programme indicated the high cost of inaction in abating greenhouse gas emissions. It concluded that:
"losses due to more frequent tropical cyclones, loss of land as a result of rising sea levels and damage to fishing stocks, agriculture and water supplies, could annually cost around $US304.2 billion".
Where will that cost fall? It will fall on those who are on low incomes, yet the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton used such people as an example to try to justify a lack of progress on renewable energy.
There is a consensus on the need to take action but, clearly, there is no political consensus yet on the magnitude of the greenhouse gas reduction that is necessary to stabilise the climate. The intergovernmental panel on climate change and, more recently, the royal commission on environmental pollution suggested minimum cuts of at least 60 per cent. from 1990 levels. Even that might be an underestimate, but it is a useful starting point. The implications of such reductions are that we will need to reduce carbon intensity by more than 1 per cent. per annum, year on year, for the next 50 years: a sustained level of
148WH
improvement over the next 50 or 60 years that is unprecedented, except perhaps in times of war, oil price shocks or other national emergencies.
To compound the challenge to the UK, nuclear power will start dropping rapidly out of the electricity system in 10 years' time—the one comment of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that I agreed with—unless it is replaced, which is not likely on economic or political grounds. The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that nuclear output will fall by approximately two thirds between 2010 and 2020, and carbon emissions could rise significantly unless that part of our energy supply is replaced, at least in part, by renewables or other zero carbon emission technologies.
The imperative driving the expansion of the renewable energy industry is not about the environment only; it is also about regeneration and fuel poverty. The Government are quite rightly spending millions of pounds to regenerate estates and areas of the country that were left to go to rack and ruin under the previous Government. How can we make such regeneration schemes even more attractive? In the long term, we could reduce the on-going energy costs of the houses and buildings that we are regenerating, by making buildings more energy efficient, and by building in sources of power—combined heat and power installations, solar panels, district heating schemes, even the occasional wind turbine, where appropriate—so that energy does not have to be purchased from traditional sources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) suggested, why not allow the owners of those houses and businesses to sell any excess power that they generate back to the national grid to reduce their costs further?
Greenpeace and the Peabody Trust installed 30 solar panels on three low-income houses in Silvertown, east London. It is projected that each home will save one third—almost £60 a year—off its electricity bill as a result. That is an example of renewable energy tackling fuel poverty and reducing the energy costs of those who are on low incomes.
When he was at the Foreign Office, my hon. Friend the Minister promoted renewable energy to facilitate economic development. Renewables can be used to power irrigation schemes to improve crop growth and tackle famine or to provide power for health clinics. Solar panels and wind turbines offer small, cost-effective energy solutions that can drive economic development and help achieve the Labour party's goal of greater social justice.
The other imperative behind renewable energy is the huge potential for new jobs. Solar photovoltaics is already a £1 billion global industry and is growing at 30 per cent. a year. The wind industry is growing at 25 to 35 per cent. a year. Overall, the global market for new renewables, excluding hydro, is worth about £40 billion a year and expected to grow. Work that has been done by Energy for Sustainable Development suggests that an additional 96,000 jobs, over and above the 4,000 that already exist in the UK in the renewables industries, could be created if we make progress and reach the 10 per cent. target that we have set. In Europe, 500,000 net jobs might be possible. Many of those new jobs will be in rural areas, which are hard pressed, as we all know. Offshore wind, for example, provides opportunities in

149WH
fabrication and manufacturing industries to replace jobs in an offshore oil and gas industry that has passed its peak in opportunities.
Until recently, few in the renewables industry believed that we were on course to meet the 10 per cent. target. Modelling carried out by Forum for the Future and Cambridge Econometrics suggested that, assuming current policy measures, less than 6 per cent. of UK electricity would come from renewable energy by 2010. I recognise that the announcement by my hon. Friend of an extra £200 million over 12 months might help us to reach that target later, but the huge numbers of jobs that can be created will not be created if we allow slow progress in developing renewables capacity. We must inject greater urgency into developing the renewables industry.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned green energy suppliers. Fewer than 20,000 UK consumers—0.075 per cent. of the total—have signed up to green energy. In contrast, there are 150,000 green energy consumers in the Netherlands and 250,000 in Germany. According to Yorkshire Electricity advisers, the big problem in Britain is the lack of available renewable energy capacity. Many consumers are unaware of green energy and are not being given the choice that they want.
The final imperative in championing renewable energies is the point about diversity and security of supply. One key consideration for British energy policy has always been to ensure that energy comes from a range of diverse and secure sources. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton spoke about the increasing acceleration of gas production during the past 20 years, and our dependence on it. I understand that current Department of Trade and Industry projections suggest that, by 2020, the UK will obtain 70 per cent. of electricity through gas. The UK's gas production is expected to peak in a few years, which will mean a steady rise in imported gas. According to the recent Ministry of Defence paper, "The Future Strategic Context of Defence",
"by 2020 we could be importing as much as 90 per cent. of our gas supplies".
That is a cause for concern, especially when one considers that the main sources of that supply could include Russia, Iran and Algeria. It is logical that we should boost the domestic renewables capacity, in order to reduce our dependence on fuel imports.
Business competitiveness could also benefit from development in renewables capacity. The Ford factory in Bridgend meets some of its energy costs by the solar panels on its roof, and BP Solar has championed the use of building voltaics as a way of businesses bringing down their costs and making their products cheaper. If we want to develop the renewable energy industry's capacity, we must modernise its infrastructure. The joint DTI-Ofgem report that was published in January highlighted the important issues. The report concluded that
"without significant changes, renewables and combined heat and power plant…will continue to be at a disadvantage when compared with generation connected to the transmission network".
150WH
Among the report's main findings is the fact that electricity distribution companies are charging renewable and combined heat and power generators too much for connecting to power networks. The report suggested a new regulatory pricing structure to limit the connection charges for renewable developers and give more financial incentives, to the National Grid Company for example, to encourage green power projects. We need urgent movement on those recommendations if we are to have the infrastructure to tackle the problems and allow the range of embedded power sources to expand considerably. We have almost 1,600 sites, but if we are to meet the 10 per cent. target, we need 4,400, If the working group's recommendations are not implemented, we will struggle to meet it.
Will my hon. Friend say more about making non-fossil fuel obligation contracts more portable? We are all familiar with the problem of NIMBYism in relation to planning issues; enabling developers who have won NFFO contracts to move the sites may help them solve such problems and thus draw down the income stream of an NFFO contract, so that new renewable energy capacity can be brought on line more quickly.
If negotiations with the Ministry of Defence over offshore wind sites are not already taking place, they should be. Whole swathes of possible sites for offshore wind have been ruled off limits because of MOD concerns that planes can hide from our radar defences behind offshore wind sites. What are the Minister's views on that? What it research is under way and what discussions are taking place to resolve those problems?
The biggest problem that needs to be addressed is that of lack of ambition for renewables—of which we had a graphic illustration in the contribution of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We need to go beyond the targets of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. Why are we not announcing targets of 20 or even 30 per cent. beyond 2010? When will we publish regional targets? Should we not incentivise regional development agencies to meet such targets and to help industry plan further investment in renewables? A key institutional change for which the Minister may recognise the need is the one-stop shop for offshore wind permits.
Responsibility for renewables is still split across several Departments: renewables with DTI, energy crops with MAFF, CHP and energy efficiency with DETR; planning policy crucial to the development of all three Departments is also with DETR. The Green Alliance identified 16 different Departments or agencies involved in promoting sustainable energy. A sign of the need for change is the fact that both DTI and DETR now have sustainable energy units. It does not seem sensible in terms of the sustainable energy agenda to split the talent in our civil service. A sustainable energy agency with a tsar-like figure of a chief executive who has the confidence of the Minister for Energy and the Prime Minister would be helpful.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to speculate with his officials, as he walks back to his office after the debate, on what he could do in terms of renewables capacity if he had not just £260 million but £1 billion. Could he allocate £200 million to more investment in solar energy? If 50 per cent. grants were given, that would get a 40,000-roof programme and 175 MW of capacity. One could have perhaps £300 million for offshore wind, with nearly 60 MW of capacity and

151WH
£450 million for biomass, with possibly 850 MW of capacity. When the civil service, with its natural caution, suggests to him that that is quite a lot of money, maybe he would acknowledge that, while that is true, it must be compared with the recent allocation of £100 million over three years to help the coal industry, the £500 million to help BAE Systems develop new technology, or the £1.5 billion that it would take to subsidise around 2,000 MW of new nuclear capacity.
The announcement today of the 18 sites for offshore wind is an example of the excellent progress and the huge steps that the Government have taken in terms of renewable energy. It marks the end of a beginning, the final step towards respectability for those of us who have advocated renewable energy. There was always a worry that renewable energy was seen as the preserve of lentil-loving, bearded eco warriors, but in fact renewables have great potential to solve a huge range of problems facing Britain. I congratulate the Minister on the progress represented by the announcements that he has made today, but I urge him to look beyond that.
3.59 pm
Mr. John Horam: I was not present at Wembley when Wales beat England by one point, but I was in front of my television set when England beat Wales by 40 points.
Mr. Hain: I was there.
Mr. Horam: A sad day for the Minister, obviously. The genius of Jonny Wilkinson eclipsed even the peerless Neil Jenkins on that famous occasion. I must admit that, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), when I read this morning about the wind projects that have been announced, I did not leap into the air with exaltation, as I did at the moment when England beat Wales by 40 points. Nevertheless, I genuinely and warmly welcome the news, which is thoroughly to be applauded.
I welcome the Minister's remarks, which he made with his usual conviction and style. I also welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who made an important point to which I hope the Minister will pay serious attention: the need for honesty and clarity in the figures that the Government present. The integrity of Government figures is an important national asset. Suspicions have developed over the years in that respect, and it is important in this context, as in many others, that the Government take that seriously.
I agree with the many hon. Members who have highlighted the vast potential of this area, which is one in which we should not lack ambition. As the Prime Minister has said, it is a win-win situation. A huge global industry is developing, and we must be part of it if Britain is to play its true role—not only on an environmental and sustainable development front, but on a business front. I have before me a table of figures produced by the European Commission—if the Minister has not seen it, I commend it to him—showing the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources by various countries in 1997. It shows Austria with more than 70 per cent., Sweden with 50 per cent., Portugal with 38 per cent., Finland with 25 per cent. and
152WH
Britain right at the bottom with 2.8 per cent. I accept that those figures relate mainly to hydro-energy, which has a history that we are not part of. However, the energy technology support unit, the Government's official advisory body on renewable energy technologies, has produced figures that show that the UK could meet 100 per cent. of its electricity demand from renewable sources. That is an area in which we can be really ambitious.
The brilliant record of previous Conservative Governments—especially in tackling climate change, reducing CO2 emissions and the dash for gas—put the Government in a wonderful position further to develop our successes, which has been rather marred by what they have done so far. For example, they introduced a moratorium on gas-fired power stations and subsidies for coal, which was exactly the wrong thing to do from the point of view of the environment and CO2 emissions.
The Government have not lived up to the Prime Minister's welcome words at the beginning of his term of office, when he said that he would put environmental considerations and sustainable development at the very heart of policy making—something that he has palpably failed to do. I was glad that he returned to the subject last November, when, as a kind of mea culpa, he gave a notably ill-received speech. In March, he made a much better speech that was more focused and clearly engaged his enthusiasm more strongly. That reversal of thought, by which the Government are starting to treat the environment as an important issue, is rather late in the day—and, I note, just before a general election—but it is welcome, given that for three and a half of their four years in office they were facing in exactly the opposite direction. We welcome the conversion, although there is a long way to go.
I welcome the £100 million for renewable energy that the Prime Minister announced in his March speech, just as I welcome his comments on the important issue of sustainable agriculture, although we are not discussing that today. The Environmental Data Services report, however, which is authoritative on all matters relating to sustainable development—I am sure that the Minister is becoming familiar with it in his new capacity—said the other day:
"The extra money will add to the confusion of funding sources for the sector, and may revive demands that they be brought under a sustainable energy agency".
The hon. Member for Harrow, West raised that issue, and I know that he has pursued it in a sustained way during the past two or three years.
The Government announced last summer that £13 million per year from the climate change levy will go to the DTI over the next three years to provide grants for offshore wind and biomass projects. However, the EDS report says that that is now destined only for offshore wind. Will the Minister confirm that?
The EDS report continues:
"The £100 million pledged by the Prime Minister in March will come from three sources: £60 million from the Treasury's capital modernisation fund, £20 million from the performance and innovation fund, and £20 million from a reallocation with the DTI's budget.

153WH
The report further comments:
"The DTI has claimed that the £100 million will be available over the next three years. But this appears inaccurate. Mr Blair said on 19 March that a report from the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit will set out how the money will be allocated between technologies".
I understand, however, that that report is not due until the autumn, so we do not yet know whether what the Prime Minister said is accurate.
The EDS report also said:
"The DTI will provide £10 million over three years to support the solar PV industry. It is not clear whether this is separate from the other funding sources".
There is considerable confusion about the funding sources. That is, I am afraid, endemic where energy is concerned.
When the Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, was producing its report on energy efficiency a couple of years ago, we visited Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, where there is an excellent energy partnership. After that visit, the Committee concluded that
"a major complaint was over the time and effort it took to achieve coherence between the various sources of funding available. There were also significant procedural barriers and we heard of a number of examples where Government rules and regulations had to be outwitted to achieve Government objectives".
That was a kind way of putting it.
The hand of the hon. Member for Harrow, West can be detected in the report's conclusion, which stated:
"We recommend that the Government review its arrangements for developing and implementing sustainable energy policy and the potential for synergy between efforts to promote energy efficiency and efforts to promote the development of renewables. In particular it should consider carefully the concerns that have led to calls for…for example, the establishment of an independent sustainable energy agency. It seems clear that while Government believes its arrangements can be made to work, this view is not shared by significant partners outside Whitehall".
We continued:
"We recommend that a new unit with a dedicated staff be given specific responsibility for driving and coordinating policy on energy efficiency".
In other words, we did not go the whole hog in advocating a sustainable energy agency, but we pointed out that there is real need, as the hon. Gentleman said, for proper co-ordination and synergy inside Government. Otherwise, however much money is spent, it will not achieve the full monty, as it were. The Government must face that problem.
Further to the confusion that I have outlined, funding is not very great. The £10 million for the solar photovoltaic industry, 50 per cent. of which will be paid out as grants, will support only 2,000 installations by 2004. The Government say that they want the UK to be a major player in the market, but the plans compare poorly with Germany's goal of 100,000 solar roofs by 2007 and Japan's planned 70,000 by 2002. Our efforts are, frankly, small beer.
Last year, 65 MW was commissioned in the UK wind sector, which has been discussed extensively this afternoon. In the meantime, according to the American Wind Energy Association, Germany added 1,668 MW,
154WH
bringing its capacity to 6,113 MW. Next in the global market was Spain, with 775 MW of new turbines, and Denmark, with 400 MW of capacity. They are big players in an area in which we are almost non-existent. The figures underline the effort that we must put in, with the Government co-ordinating. It is certainly true that we have a significant advantage in terms of offshore wind, which is why this morning's announcement is welcome. We are beginning to get off the ground in that regard, and it is offshore wind that could enable us to take a significant step forward.
We should not ignore biomass and energy crops, which have not been mentioned much in today's debate. Given our informal discussion on renewable energy a couple of weeks ago, the Minister will be aware of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), who is himself a farmer. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is not a question simply of subsidies. These days, farmers are very suspicious of subsidies, because they know that they can change from year to year or end suddenly, so they cannot necessarily plan a long-term future. Before turning over their fields to energy crops, they want to know that there is a real commercial future.
Energy crops pose special problems. It is not simply a question of clearing the old crops, putting in the new ones and hoping for the best. Should one decide that the venture has failed, it takes several years to bleed energy crops out of the system and return to ordinary crops. A farmer who converts some of his fields is taking a big risk. None the less, given the current state of agriculture and the rural crisis, we should bear it in mind that energy crops could play a significant part in the future of renewables. I hope that the Government will not neglect them.
In our informal discussion, I asked the Minister whether he would co-ordinate with Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science. In terms of co-ordinating effort and assessing current developments, the forward-looking arrangements that are in place, which the previous Government initiated, are valuable. We should combine developments in academia, Government and business, and recognise the achievements that a properly co-ordinated, machinery-of-government approach could bring about.
I understand that the Government are reviewing public and private funding for renewables. In particular, they are considering whether there are gaps in private funding that need to be supplemented by Government funding. That is a sensible move, which I entirely support. I should like to know what the state of play is in that regard, and whether the Government intend to publish their findings.
Finally, as Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, I can assure the Minister that we will take a close look at his work in the next few months. We believe that this is an extremely important issue, and we shall closely monitor what he says.
4.13 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I welcome this afternoon's debate, which, as many hon. Members have noted, reflects the coming of age of renewables, not only as a serious part of any UK energy programme, but as a serious subject for discussion. Indeed, I suspect that they will be central to any future discussion on this country's energy policies.

155WH
The need for renewable energy relates primarily to what we do about greenhouse gas emissions. During the past century, we have been profligate with the release of long-stored CO2 into the atmosphere. At the beginning of our debate, I heard someone saying that the usual suspects are present, so there is no need for charts on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 the enormous concentration over the recent industrial period in parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere Very few scientists or public figures now dispute the link between the rise of CO2in the atmosphere and mankind's doings, or the onward march and apparent increased effect of global warming beyond recent predictions.
It is unfortunate, as some hon. Members have said, that one of the few global politicians who repudiates that hypothesis is President Bush, and the only politician of any standing in this country who repudiates it is the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I am not sure whether she and President Bush can be closely bracketed together, but it is something for us to ponder on.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the IPCC estimate of what we must do to mode towards climate stability for the planet. He referred to a reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels of 60 of 70 per cent., and other hon. Members explained what that means in terms of the progress that we must make. It is certainly more than our current progress. That also gives us cause to reflect on what we mean by a renewable energy policy. Such a policy should not be an add-on to other energy policy considerations, or something on which we may make a little progress because it is a bit cleaner than some other energy policies. It has to be a central imperative if we are to get anywhere near the sort of reductions that most leading scientists in the world say are the minimum starting point for climate stability. In that context I was concerned to hear the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) saying that we must worry about the cost and so on. We should debate that, but it should be done in the context that a reduction strategy is an imperative and not an add-on to something else that we are doing.
It is interesting to reflect on the notions that we had a few years ago when we thought that we should move to renewable energy because we would run out of non-renewable energy resources. In the 1960s and 1970s, we had various prognostications that we would run out of oil in a short period. New methods of exploration then gave us the idea that we had more oil reserves than we had thought, and some people thought it unnecessary to discuss renewables to the same extent. We now know that if we used all our known mineral energy resources, we would comprehensively poison the atmosphere. Using our known reserves of oil and mineral fuels is no longer the option we thought it might be prior to the introduction of renewable energy. Renewable energy is the alternative way forward, and a substantial proportion of our known reserves of mineral fuel can remain in the ground.
It is important to remember that, apart from the environmental considerations, the planet has passed the historic point at which we have used more than half the likely reserves of mineral energy. It is downhill all the way, and it is likely to be at a faster rate than our ascent up the curve of the mineral energy economy in the past century. Furthermore, the majority
156WH
of the remaining reserves of oil are in the hands of five or six countries, and that concentration will increase as the curve goes downwards. In terms of geopolitics, I am unsure whether it is a good idea to mortgage our future on reserves in the hands of such a small number of countries. For several reasons, it is important that we get on with re-equipping ourselves to wean our economy away from its dependence on mineral fuels.
It is also interesting to see how far the debate has come. A few years ago, anyone who suggested that a substantial proportion of a nation's energy supply could be obtained from renewable sources would have been considered certifiable. Now that has changed, and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) mentioned an energy technology support unit study that demonstrated that if we properly harness the resources available in this island of ours, most of our energy could be obtained from renewable sources. That is not to suggest that we have to go around in handcarts to have our energy from renewable sources. As far as I understand the ETSU report, it states that we could live similar lives to those that we lead now. That is a fundamental breakthrough in the debate. A high-tech, high-industrialised, comfortable modern society could be sustained on this island using energy supplied from renewable sources.
The idea that we can run an economy substantially provided by the planet's revenue resources, rather than the planet's capital resources, has begun to percolate down into policy making. The Government know that we must make giant strides in our capacity to generate energy from renewables, and are beginning to deploy the policies and resources to allow that to happen. The mechanisms must be there, and, in my view, they must be more than market mechanisms, which I heard with some incredulity as the sum total of the Opposition's policy on renewable energy development. The Opposition have, of course, shamefully pledged to scrap the climate change levy, which is a key starter mechanism. It is a vital tool in our toolbox, because it encourages the efficient use of energy and, if possible, the reduction of energy use.
Indeed, the exemption from the levy for renewables creates a further mechanism for the creation of a reliable market for renewable energy by 2010. The target of 10 per cent. of energy supplied by renewables gives shape to our ambitions. My view is that the climate change levy and the target for renewable energy are important first steps, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) have underlined, they must be followed up with long-term commitments on what happens next. I anticipate that both the levy and the renewables target will rise in the second decade of the century. As the market for renewables expands, the attainment of new targets will become easier and the pressure on costs will be taken off industry by the sourcing of energy supply from renewables: a virtuous circle, which we can create if we have the will to do so.
The Government have also taken firm steps to develop the technologies that will supply those markets. The Prime Minister's recent announcement of £100 million for renewables development was a superb shot in the arm for the industry, as were today's announcement of 18 offshore wind projects and the

157WH
Minister's wise decision to allow stalled renewable projects access to NFFO money, which was in danger of disappearing if the projects had not matured by particular dates.
All that is excellent news, but I want to concentrate on one aspect of renewable energy: photovoltaics. Until recently, the DTI regarded it as a long-term research technology. In the Green Paper on renewable energy that was published in 1998, photovoltaics is down for longer-term consideration in the United Kingdom after 2010, but In the recent White Paper, "Opportunity for all in a world of change", I was encouraged to see the following statement:
"Solar photovoltaic PV systems, which generate electricity from daylight, are a renewable energy form with enormous potential. Their current contribution to electricity supplies is small, but growing rapidly with the aid of substantial support and investment around the world. PV tiles and modules can be incorporated into the roofs of homes and the facades of offices, enabling buildings to generate their own electricity".
It is interesting that the statement emphasises the fact that PV generates electricity from daylight. The DTI nomenclature of PV as generating electricity from the sun seems to have undergone an important change. All that is required for PV is for it not to be night. A continuous and reliable current can be produced without strong sunlight.
The important point about the recent change in thinking is that PV is a mature, not a fringe, research technology. With developments in thin foil PV technology, the conversion rate of solar tiles is now four times greater than five or so years ago. The installation of solar or PV technology in roofs is now a realistic proposition. The technology does not need a great deal more research, but it needs to be brought to market.
With a south-facing roof with embedded PV, most households would be able to support sufficient cells to supply approximately 75 per cent. of their electricity needs. I am hoping to have a substantial PV installation on my roof by the end of the year, and I hope that the Minister will visit me to enjoy a cup of tea heated by the daylight that we will see through the windows. Indeed, other hon. Members may care to join us.
PV is fundamentally different from other forms of renewables, because it is not site specific. If anything, it is urban specific. There is no need for tides, hills with lots of wind or large fields to grow willow coppicing—just lots of roofs, and as anyone can see, there are many roofs in towns in the United Kingdom. The roofs do not even need much doing to them. As hon. Members have mentioned, if solar energy is embedded into roofs when houses are built, PV becomes virtually a common-sense part of daily living. At a recent conference, I was struck by a photograph taken by another speaker of a converted barn that had a complete solar tiled roof. Apparently, the next-door neighbour was curious about why someone should be taking photographs of the roof, and was completely unaware of the embedded installation.
However, there are problems, and we must be realistic about them. The cost of PV electricity is relatively high, mainly because of the cost of the installation and of the cells, although once installed, the electricity is virtually free. The price of the cells is the real cost, and their
158WH
amortisation over 25 years—the life of the system—provides the price of the electricity. The cost is largely because there is no mass production of PV cells in the UK. Virtually all PV installations in the UK rely on imported cells. One large PV factory in the UK would, in its own right, bring the cost of PV down the price per kilowatt to something like that of traditionally generated electricity. That is especially important because of the capital investment required.
Indeed, a PV roof mortgage market might develop over the next few years—one would pay a mortgage for one's roof, which would be paid back with the savings made as a result of the free electricity supplied. If that system had a payback period of, say, 10 to 15 years, it would be a realistic, proposition—any building society or bank will lend on that basis—but if it pays back in 40 to 50 years, that is not so realistic. We must bring solar to market, and not just do the research, so that such mechanisms can develop.
The way in which electricity is imported when the PV system does not supply enough through its own mechanisms is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) mentioned two-way metering. During daylight hours in the summer, an average domestic PV installation will produce much more electricity than it needs, so it can be exported to the national grid. If it is night time or winter, it will produce less, so it will need to import. A single meter that runs forwards and backwards should be part of standard installation. Electricity companies should not demand that two meters be installed in a house for that purpose. In addition, a fair price should be paid for electricity exported. It is not acceptable for electricity companies to claim that, because the electricity has to be carried to the national grid, the charge for electricity imported and electricity exported should be at a ratio of 5:1.
Training in PV plumbing is needed. As far as I know, no college runs courses, let alone offers qualifications, in PV plumbing. If even some of the targets in the White Paper are to be achieved, a swathe of skilled installers will be needed to undertake widespread domestic retrofitting, and embedded fitting in new housing estates. Currently, there are simply not enough people with such skills. However, such skills are likely to be much in demand in the future—it will be, literally, a sunrise industry career. That must be investigated in the wake of establishing mechanisms that will bring PV to market and make it work well.
I look forward to a future in which we pay our way in energy supply. By that, I mean that we use the energy that the world makes for itself as it goes along, rather than using the capital of the fabric of the planet. That is the key difference about renewable energy. I congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken so far. However, a certain phrase keeps coming into my hind: "A lot done, a lot left to do." Those are the watchwords for our debate this afternoon.
4.33 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the Minister on the announcements that he made in his opening statement, which was hugely encouraging to many hon. Members who have had a long-standing interest in renewable energy. I also congratulate the

159WH
Government on the increasing interest that they have shown in the matter during the second half of this Parliament.
All hon. Members present are aware that renewables are crucial to this country, not only for its economic future, through the enormous potential for the revival of the British engineering industry, but for the way in which we respond to climate change, which remains the biggest single threat to the survival of human beings on this planet, and because of important geopolitical issues surrounding the development of renewables and the rundown of fossil fuels. That was hinted at by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead).
It has been said many times that the stone age did not end for lack of stone nor the steam age for lack of steam. The oil age will probably not end for lack of oil, but it will become increasingly difficult to extract the remaining global oil reserves. Such extraction, whether it occurs in Alaska or the Arctic, will cost increasingly more, and become more environmentally dangerous. The world's remaining oil reserves will be increasingly under the control of a small group of countries—among them Iraq, which will have the largest single supply of oil reserves after 2010. The prospect, after 2010, of depending on Iraq's fossil fuels, or gas supplies from Algeria or Russia, should concentrate our minds on the geopolitical issues.
The development of renewables is the key not only to managing climate change and reducing our emissions but probably to resolving the largest blockage in the Kyoto protocol negotiations: the American Government's refusal to ratify the protocol and the decision of the new President of the United States not to support it. There is an argument that the Americans object not necessarily because they are reluctant to reduce their emissions per se, but because they are reluctant to reduce them when, over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, they anticipate the threat of competition from developing countries such as those in southern Africa. Competition may also come from China, which is particularly relevant because of the present conflict in the South China sea.
Advanced industrial countries, with the engineering capacity to develop the wide range of renewable technologies that we have discussed, are crucial. The technology could be sold to the enormous markets of China and southern Africa. If we can build a future and map out a scenario in which industrial development in China and southern Africa does not depend on fossil fuels, and in which the United States can see that it will not be at a competitive disadvantage to such countries, that may be the way to clear the blockage in the Kyoto negotiations and persuade the United States that ratification is possible, on certain conditions.
The development of renewables has enormous global implications. My only regret is that this debate is being held in the smaller Chamber. It should be held in the main Chamber, within the context of a wider debate about the green industrial revolution, which the Department of Trade and Industry is currently promoting, thanks to the initiatives of the Secretary of State, whose presence we would welcome at such a debate in the weeks and months ahead, because we need
160WH
to consider seriously all aspects of that industrial revolution. Such a debate should occur in Government time and in the main Chamber.
I was impressed by the ability of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) to recite an apparently interminable list of statistics, and equally depressed by his complete lack of vision about what the world will be like in the future. I suspect that if we had sat here 200 years ago, he would have told us that there was no future in coal, and if we had sat here 100 years ago, he would have told us that there was no future in oil. We sit here today, and he tells us that there is no future in renewables. I do not know his prospects of ascending to the role of shadow Secretary of State after the election—who knows what cull will take place after 7 June—but if he is to ascend to a high position, he should provide more vision on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition must spell out their policy on renewables, and on energy in general.
Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to me. I pointed out that renewable energy is not the answer to the Kyoto targets, the greenhouse gas emission problem and climate change, because it will not deliver the cuts in CO2 in the time required or at a realistic cost. If the Government are serious about reducing CO2 emissions to the levels agreed internationally for 2010 and beyond, they must start thinking about energy policy more seriously and find a realistic and urgent answer to Magnox decommissioning.
Mr. Chaytor: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman earlier, and I am glad that he has reiterated his argument, because it confirms my belief that he lacks vision. The 2010 targets can be reached not simply by using renewable energy but by improved energy efficiency—but only if the political will is there. The targets for after 2010 have yet to be decided. We accept the recent recommendation of the royal commission on environmental pollution that we shall need to consider targets of 60 per cent. or even higher by the middle of the century.
We need now to develop a climate change strategy for beyond 2010, with a progressive increase in targets for CO2 emissions, and as those targets are increased, the benefits of the renewable technology will increase progressively to compensate. If we look at the development of technology over the past 100 years—for example, the development of the internal combustion engine and motor vehicles, of computers and mobile telephones—it is obvious that once a market is developed, once the thrust of scientific research is put behind those technologies, once they have taken off, they develop exponentially.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to think of the state of development of computers 10 or even five years ago and consider how quickly they have developed. Renewables in 2005 or 2010 will be vastly different from now, because of the amazing discoveries and developments that have been made in wave and tidal power, in photovoltaics and in wind turbines, as my hon. Friends have said. I intend to construct a single wind turbine in my back yard and I, too, will invite the Minister to join me and inspect it in due course.

161WH
I know that time is short and that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) wishes to speak. Simply expanding renewables is not the total solution. Other factors must be considered: the most important—it is almost a prerequisite—is energy efficiency. I was delighted that the Minister gave an important speech in the Queen Elizabeth conference centre two or three weeks ago to mark the publication of the Government's fuel poverty strategy. Significant commitments and enormous investment are being made to improve energy efficiency in the homes of the poorest people in the UK.
As we go about our work on the Parliamentary Estate, when we examine what happens in our homes and offices, when we visit schools, factories and hospitals in our constituencies, we can see that the scope for making further improvements in energy efficiency is phenomenal. It is not simply a question of a little more insulation, but of developing new technology and energy management. We must persuade the Government to start investing in energy efficiency on a much broader front.
I make the categorical claim that the Kyoto target—the Government's ambitious, voluntary 20 per cent. target for a reduction on 1990 levels—could be met by improved energy efficiency measures alone, but that will need political commitment. It will also need a campaign of public information and education, with appropriate support for the low-tech solutions necessary to deliver those efficiency measures.
We must pause a moment to define renewables. Some people—including, I suspect, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—define nuclear energy as renewable. In the debate on climate change, it is important to say loud and clear that nuclear energy should not be so defined, whatever the nuclear lobby has tried to argue in the past two or three years. It has taken them a long time to wake up to the point. Although it is indisputable that individual nuclear stations do not emit carbon dioxide, the infrastructure of the nuclear industry as a whole emits vast quantities of it.
There will always be a small role for nuclear energy; it is extremely important that nuclear research and development continues, because it is impossible to predict what science will deliver in the years ahead. However, anyone who is persuaded by the argument that because the Magnox stations will close by 2010, there is somehow an energy gap, and thus a case for developing new nuclear plant, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Does the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton seriously think that nuclear energy is economically viable? He cited figures that I did not recognise, saying that renewables cost three times more than fossil fuel electricity. That is not my experience. I can ring up Scottish Power, for example, and get a contract for renewable electricity in my home for a modest extra payment. Most electricity companies offer that service.
The real cost of nuclear power, now and in the past, shows that it has never been economically viable and existed only because enormous amounts of taxpayers' money went into it. If it were viable, why are not people in Britain queueing up to run a private nuclear power station? It is because they know that they cannot make a profit from it.
162WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Test had the excellent idea of mortgages for photovoltaic roofs, and my suggestion, which relates to fuel duty, complements his. I shall not go into the complicated arguments on the subject, but fuel duty has contributed significantly to the reduction of CO2 emissions in recent years. The future of the internal combustion engine will be short-lived: within 10 years it is likely that the majority of new vehicles in this country will run not on petrol or diesel but on hydrogen. The key challenge is to find a way of managing the transition from the internal combustion engine to the fuel cell engine. Fuel cells produce no emissions and there is an infinite supply of cleanly produced hydrogen.
Some years after the Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, they made a commitment that any future increase would be ring-fenced for the development of public transport, tying together in the public mind the relationship between the impossibility of continuing as we have in the past, with an economy dominated by the private vehicle, and the necessity of developing more public transport. They should consider ring-fencing the fuel duty revenues, not for public transport, as the connection for the public is too remote, but for the development of clean and renewable fuel for the private motor car. It could go into a fund that would support the research and development of fuel cells or, more usefully, one that would provide rebates for individuals buying fuel cell cars when they are marketed in 2004, 2005 and onwards.
The key to reducing the dominance of the internal combustion engine and the transport sector's high CO2 emissions is to make the transition to the fuel cell. Using fuel duty revenues to subsidise the introduction of fuel cell vehicles would be a winner. It would be effective and efficient and make it clear to the public that it is vital to wean ourselves off fossil fuel, especially in motor cars, and on to clean and renewable energy.
My final suggestion is about the need to revive British engineering. The development of renewables—whether wind power, wave power, photovoltaics or wind turbines—provides enormous opportunities for British engineering. If we want to expand renewable technologies, we should look for sites in areas that were most locked into the development of fossil fuels. If we want to find a site for an enormous photovoltaic factory—with large enough panels to make it economically viable—we should examine areas of the country that were dependent on coal. The Government—and our society more widely—have a responsibility to put something back into the mining areas that were so devastated both by the specific actions of the previous Conservative Government and by the inevitability of the running down of fossil fuels. Locations in old coalfields would be perfect for the development of clean, renewable technologies. The point also applies to old nuclear sites. The Sellafield site in Cumbria, for example, might be considered as a future location for a true centre of excellence for renewable technologies in the United Kingdom.
I congratulate the Minister once again. Today's announcement is important and I hope that, as the weeks and months go by, we shall have many more debates about renewables and the green industrial revolution.
4.51 pm
Mr. David Kidney: My hon. Friends have set me a tricky challenge. What renewable can I install at home and invite the Minister to view? We have had solar panels and wind turbines; there are no waves near Stafford; would an energy crop do?
It has been a pleasure just to listen to our debate, and reassuring to hear such knowledgeable views about a sturdy future for our renewables industry. There will soon be an explosion of demand for renewable energy sources, and those who take the plunge now and develop the industries to meet that demand will benefit later. We could not prevent the industry from developing if Britain failed to take part, but we could lose opportunities for jobs and security of supply in the future. I hope that Conservative Front Benchers will reconsider their attitude.
I can understand why the American hosts of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) may have felt threatened. Individual consumers developing their own energy sources and adopting net metering must sound like anarchy to those who are used to being in command of their markets—but that will happen in due course and companies will have to deal with it. The wiser ones are already adapting well to the change.
In this country there has been far too much stop-start in promoting the renewables industry. The Government are slowly moving in the right direction. The signs are there: the renewables obligation, the fund for clean energy out of the climate change levy, the regional renewable energy targets, the capital grants for offshore wind and energy crops, research and development support, money for the solar photovoltaic demonstration project and, most recently, the Prime Minister's announcement of another £100 million. I have learned from a parly answer that the money is so far unallocated. Perhaps we can have some input, through what we say today, on how it might best be spent.
This country remains disappointingly near the bottom of the league table for renewable generation. It is difficult to envisage how we can change that. Some say that consumer prices present too much of an obstacle, rather like the threat to beef producers' supplies in the meat industry. We must face down those arguments and focus on protecting the climate and reducing harmful emissions. Those should be much higher priorities and the Government should intervene to make that clear. They must get the financial regime right if they are to do so effectively.
The operators of combined heat and power units receive no tax break in this country for selling off excess power—power that is not needed—whereas those in most other countries do. That means that it is more economic to buy in heat and power separately and not bother with a combined heat and power energy unit, which is exactly what we do not want. If the Minister has heard about that problem before. I hope that his colleagues in the Treasury are addressing it.
Two hon. Members have mentioned the report from the energy technology support unit—ETSU—which said that we could go a long way towards meeting our electricity needs from renewable sources and identified solar power as the lead provider. As my hon. Friend the
164WH
Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, the factor holding back the widespread installation of solar panels is cost. He made a point that I wanted to make: we could bring prices down to levels comparable to those for fossil fuel generation with one major PV factory achieving economies of scale. There are no technological barriers in the way of such a scale-up. Solar panels are expensive, so not many people buy them, so not many are manufactured and they remain expensive. The Government need to step in to break that deadlock.
The European Commission has proposed a target of 500,000 roofs in the European Union by 2010. On a per capita basis, our share would be 70,000. Germany already has a target of 100,000 roofs. This Government could help in several ways. Compulsion could be one way: building regulations for the construction of new properties could be changed. Incentivisation could be another: there could be a system of tax credits for those who carry out installations or build new properties. There are ways in which we could do well. There will no doubt be big business in future, but we are losing out on our share of it.
Other hon. Members have given a strategic overview, but I thought that I might assist the Minister by talking about the grass roots in Stafford. We have had a go at promoting renewable energy as an industry, although we have not succeeded brilliantly yet. Let me start by explaining that Stafford has quite a history of power generation. We have had watermills since at least 1164, horse-driven mills since 1561, windmills since 1585, steam trains since 1876 and petrol and diesel engines since 1903. The Dormans factory was set up in 1870.
We have had 100 years of electricity generation, turbines, transmission and distribution in Stafford, first by Siemens, which sold out to English Electric, which in turn sold out to the General Electric Company, which embarked on a partnership with Almost in France and then sold out to it. The new company was floated on the stock market and called Alstom. It is now a major employer in Stafford, but like many traditional manufacturing companies, it has been downsizing in terms of employee numbers for a long time. That came to a head a year ago, when about 1,000 people lost their jobs in six months. It was a frightening time for Stafford, because that was a big blow to the local economy.
We cast around for ideas on how to respond. I thought that, as we had 100 years' experience, we should look for the next—hon. Members should excuse the pun—generation of the power industry, by considering renewable energies. That struck a chord with local people. Renewable energy is popular with people and they want to see more of it. They certainly like the idea of jobs making things that help to produce renewable energy.
The local council was successful in a bid for single regeneration budget round 6 money, which included an element for developing renewable energy. The regional development agency—Advantage West Midlands—supported the scheme, which was excellent. However, we have encountered difficulties as a result of the lack of individuals and organisations with the vision and enterprise to make schemes work. Some people are keen. One company in Stafford is a good biomass producer and has started a waste-to-energy scheme and developed an idea about energy crops. All that is the

165WH
result of one person's enterprise, but there are simply not enough individuals who can undertake the right work. The Minister may like to consider whether we could put together some successful case studies, either by sector or by place. We can disseminate such information throughout the country, giving examples to others on how to proceed.
I wish to comment on the Minister's side-by-side development in the Department of Trade and Industry of industrial clusters. There is a good possibility that there will be peer group support for renewable energy industries, if they can be clustered together and support each other through the difficult times of setting up. The mighty ideas at the top are supported at the national level to become policies, but they will not work unless someone gives them a little push on the ground.
5 pm
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the last two speakers for giving me a lot of time to reply to the debate—perhaps rather more than I expected, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so. Although it is a custom of Ministers to say that they have been involved in a good debate, I actually mean it on this occasion. It has been a good debate. I have learned a great deal from it and I am sure that my excellent officials sitting behind me have learned a great deal, too, not least because of the passion of well-informed enthusiasts in the House for renewable energy. That will give me, as the Minister responsible for such matters, extra encouragement to take forward such an agenda in the knowledge that many well-informed people will be on my back if there is an attempt to prevaricate. I hope that all the other members of the Government will read the report of the debate and be similarly responsive.
I am grateful for the invitations to visit my hon. Friends' homes. As well as a cup of tea, I hope that something more sustaining will await me if I can accept such invitations. I welcome the debate and the enthusiasm about renewable energy. Listening to the contributions, it struck me that we are just in time to avoid Britain being crucified historically for poverty of ambition and a crippling lack of vision in respect of the future of energy, especially renewable energy. We are coming at it rather later in the day than we should be and I suspect that that is the common view of those who have participated in the debate. I am not sure about the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), but if we talked to him on his own rather than discussing matters that will be on the record, I should think that he would agree with that, too.
The Government have made gigantic strides forward, but we must do a great deal more—something that the debate will encourage us to do. I welcomed much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is a serious student of energy policy in general and of renewable energy, but others have echoed some of my worries. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed today's announcement. He asked about the cost of the renewables obligation. It will be about 20p a week to the average customer, which is about 3.7 per cent. on the average bill. That is small beer and, if the average customer were invited to say whether he really wanted to pay an extra 20p a week for clean, green energy, he would put up his hand with alacrity.
166WH
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton questioned our ability to reach the targets that we have signed up to internationally, as did the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). It is important to recognise that we need reductions in emissions, changes in energy use and increases in energy efficiency—a point made by many hon. Members. I am not claiming that renewables are the 100 per cent. answer to reducing emissions to the target levels to which we signed up, but they will make a significant contribution.
I did not completely understand what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about the end of the life of the Magnox stations. He is welcome to clarify his point, if he wishes to. Is he saying that a commitment will be given in the forthcoming Conservative party manifesto for new build of nuclear power stations? Is he committing himself to continuing the enormous subsidies on which nuclear power has depended and to paying the fantastically expensive clean-up bill of billions of pounds that it leaves in its wake, which comes out of the public purse? We need to know whether that is the policy of the principal Opposition. I am not making a party point; this is an important issue for the future of nuclear policy, which has implications for the public purse. Such a project or projects would create planning problems that would cause years of disputes. One has only to consider the history of the Sizewell power station. We should be told whether the Conservative party has such intentions. The hon. Gentleman may not want to jump up now—perhaps he does not have the authority to do so—but we should be told. We shall study his remarks with great care in the coming weeks and months and during any election campaign, because voters should know whether that is Conservative party policy.
I welcome the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). He acknowledged that no previous British Government have taken comparable action on the renewables agenda and rightly castigated the previous Government—again, I say that in a non-party context—for abandoning the research and development funding for wave and tidal stream power in 1994. Thereafter the Labour Government had to resurrect it. He is right in saying that we missed the boat on wind power—a boat in which Denmark then sailed away—and that we should not do so again. I agree with him about wave and tidal stream power, too, and about other forms of renewable energy. As he rightly said, the Department of Trade and Industry has been too slow in the past on this matter, but we are trying, and succeeding in getting up to speed.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of waste. Government policy is clear: we want to minimise waste by adopting appropriate domestic and industrial life styles and using business methods to that purpose, and to maximise reuse and recycling. That is our first principle. Secondly, we are not seeking to encourage incineration in any way but, when it is necessary and possible, it is sensible to recover the energy. I want to encourage new exciting technologies that can be linked into the waste process. After recycling has taken place, all the heavy content of waste—the metals, glass, heavy plastics and so on—might be disposed of through the new, cleaner technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification.

167WH
Those technologies were explained to me in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who invited a local business along to meet me. I was excited to hear about that alternative to incineration and want to find ways to encourage that, as it is potentially a new form of energy, the biodegradable parts of which are classified as genuinely renewable. British businesses such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency, which may have an Australian origin but has a lot of British potential, should be given support.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, not least because Brightstar Environmental, the company to which he refers, employs some 90 people in my constituency. As he said, it is an Australian-owned company, and I understand that it recently opened a facility with such technology in New South Wales. Will he ensure that his officials check out the facility in Australia so that we can further understand the opportunities and potential for that technology in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hain: I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. Indeed, I shall ask our high commission there to check that out and report back to me, and I shall send him any information that I believe may be of value to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown is a member of the Science and Technology Committee, with which I had an interesting session a few weeks ago, to which he referred. As a former Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington will know the risks that I am taking in inviting a proactive and enthusiastic report from the Science and Technology Committee to encourage the DTI and this Minister on our journey for renewables.
I have tried to answer the similar questions about waste asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). I agree that the planning jungle is a serious problem. We must get the balance right and meet genuine local anxieties, such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) referred in the case of Pennine wind farms—many other examples could be cited —without completely jamming up the renewables momentum by overcomplicated and obstructive planning regulations and procedures. That is why, in the case of offshore wind, I have tried to combine all those aspects on a one-stop-shop basis in the consultation that we are currently taking forward.
Although it is not official Government policy, I agree that we should consider taking the renewables targets beyond 2010, in consultation with our international partners, especially the European Union. I am not sure whether that will be possible across the Atlantic, with the United States, but I hope that in time it will. We should seriously consider long-term future targets for renewables, and we shall try to do so through international agreement so that we make more than our proper contribution but are not, if possible, disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the Liberal Democrats' website. I am sure that my officials will want to study that extremely carefully in anticipation of a possible Liberal landslide and his having my job after the election. We shall certainly read that document.
168WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West exulted in his Welsh roots, and I am delighted that he is proud of them. I welcome his call for what he called greater urgency, using the magnificent performance of the Welsh rugby team at Wembley to spur him on—which was, as the hon. Member for Orpington reminded us, only too sadly not repeated at the millennium stadium. He referred to President Bush's recent statement on Kyoto, which was devastatingly disappointing for us all. I hope that the United States Administration will reconsider the matter, because no one can opt out of their international obligations, for the simple reason that if they do, the future environmental consequences will be visited on them equally as on the rest of us.
I agree that NFFO portability is crucial, and we shall pursue it vigorously. I listened carefully to the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for joined-up government, especially with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and ourselves, and we shall try to take that forward. We are working with the Ministry of Defence on the effect of onshore wind farms on its necessary operations.
Mr. Brake: What action is the Minister taking to push forward the renewables energy agenda among other Departments to encourage them to use that energy? They are large consumers and could make a significant difference.
Mr. Hain: Like everyone, I am aware of that issue and it is under active consideration.
The hon. Member for Orpington is also extremely well informed on the subject and I welcomed my informal hearing in front of the Environmental Audit Committee, although I do not think that my health was at its best. I agree that our past record in Britain has been pathetic, especially compared with other European Union countries. He quoted sources that said that renewable energy could, in principle, supply 100 per cent. of our energy needs, which we must bear in mind. I also take his point about the potential confusion of funding sources and undertake to write to him on that. He will be aware of our published statements on the costs, some of which I mentioned, and the subsidies and finance that we have put in. There is no attempt to double-count or pull the wool over anyone's eyes about the money that we are making available, but just in case there is a lack of clarity, I will write to him about it and copy the letter to other hon. Members and the Library.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's welcome for biomass and energy from crops, and the points that came up in that Committee hearing about farmers' need for security, especially in view of recent developments and with the BSE hangover. We will need to provide that security and set out a clear strategy for biomass that gives encouragement, because it is important for the future of the countryside as well as of renewable energy. I undertake to work with the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury on a point that the hon. Gentleman made during that hearing, and I would be happy to let him know the outcome.
Like several other Members, the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned photovoltaics. The £ million contribution would be too little if that were all it was;

169WH
instead, it is an initial payment to get us off the ground and get a PV project going. Additional funding could then be drawn down from the new £100 million grant announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, once we know the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit study of renewable energy on how that money should be distributed to PV and other sources.
My hon. Friends the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for Bury, North raised important questions about long-term security of supply and our dependence on oil and gas reserves from some fairly dodgy parts of the world, if I am allowed to use non-ministerial language. They are unstable areas that could hold countries such as ours in debt to them if we were not careful, which would have grave consequences for British and international security. We must take that into account in considering the future of energy policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made a brilliantly interesting speech on photovoltaics, including what he is doing in his own home. Only a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting Northumbria university, which has an innovative research and development programme on PV, and my hon. Friend would be encouraged if he had the opportunity to visit to see what is being done. I agree that there is too much ignorance of PV. Light is the driving energy force. I was interested to find out from Northumbria university that, with current technology, milder weather is better for PV than hot weather, which is better for solar energy. In fact, PV would be ideally suited to the conditions of a climate such as Britain's—in Wales, of course, it is always sunny.
We have to crack the problem of bringing PV to market. That is a severe obstacle at present. The capital cost of PV equipment is high, and I was interested in the point that my hon. Friend made about the way in which mortgages could be reconfigured. We will certainly examine that within the DTI, and I will discuss it with colleagues in Government.
I refer to an interesting project in the eastern Cape of South Africa. Shell and ESKOM, the South African electricity generator, formed a partnership and put free installations into 6,000 properties in a poor township. Those residents would have had no prospect of funding that upfront capital cost. Using a prepayment meter system and some interesting software, that project has been an enormous success. That example should serve as a model: with donor nation funding, PV could be spread throughout Africa and thereby, through economies of scale, bring down capital costs and bounce them back to industrialised countries. We in Government should try to take that forward.
I was intrigued by my hon. Friend's reference to the need for more training schemes for PV plumbers. I will certainly look into that and discuss it with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment. I am aware that Ministers are supposed to know everything, but I did not know that that was a problem. Obviously, it is something that we need to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North called for a green industrial revolution and referred to our recent White Paper on the knowledge-based economy.
170WH
Renewable energy is at the forefront in contributing to Britain becoming one of the most successful—if not the most successful—knowledge-based economies in the world. The field of energy offers the greatest scope for new scientific and technological development and knowledge-based expertise. I agree that it has the capacity to grow exponentially. My hon. Friend's words in that respect are wise indeed; sometimes, Governments are far too conservative in embracing new technologies and capacities, and make decisions that the markets judge as old-fashioned. That is true of the overall perception of the potential of renewable energy. The public is not aware of its enormous potential and the Government have a duty to drive forward research and development and to support the businesses that are taking the agenda forward.
I agree that the fuel poverty agenda is an important part of the greater energy efficiency that will help us meet our targets. I was pleased that my hon. Friend referred to fuel cells and their contribution to the agenda, especially in making the transition away from the internal combustion engine. His remarks about the manner in which fuel duty might be engineered—if I can put it that way—were intriguing, and I will ensure that the Chancellor's attention is drawn to them. For the sake of my career, I should not make any ex cathedra announcements in that respect.
The Government have supported fuel cell research and development for many years through the DTI's new and renewable energy programme and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council programmes. Several British firms are already key players in that emerging international industry. We are urgently considering what further measures are needed to encourage the take-up of fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. A joint DETR-DTI consultation document on powering future vehicles is planned for June—perhaps a little later in June, who knows? A strategy on powering future vehicles will be finalised by the end of the year and will set out how the Government will support, facilitate and promote the take-up of new vehicle technologies.
The Government have also announced £9 million of new money for the DETR's new vehicle technology fund, £750,000 of which has already been allocated to allow London Transport to obtain three Daimler-Chrysler hydrogen fuel cell buses. I am therefore pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that. We should think about his comments on the location of PV initiatives, with a possible production base in former coal communities, and about his interesting reference to west Cumbria. That is a way of taking the agenda forward to benefit areas that may need it in future—coal communities certainly need it now.
Finally, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Before the Minister moves away from the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on the green industrial revolution, I remind him that my hon. Friend talked about the rapid developments of technology and the benefits of installing PV on a range of sites. As many hon. Members have acknowledged, a crucial change is the modernisation of the industry's infrastructure. We need to take forward the recommendations of Ofgem and the DTI's working paper on embedded generation.

171WH
Could my hon. Friend the Minister respond, perhaps not now, on how the DTI will take forward that working group's recommendations?
Mr. Hain: Those recommendations are important. Fortuitously, I was speaking to the regulator Callum McCarthy about that very matter this afternoon. He is very seized of Ofgem's responsibilities and duties in that respect and is keen to take the matter forward with us so that we get the regulatory methods as well as the infrastructure and all the other issues referred to in that report absolutely right.
In response to the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about net metering, we are making the point that the choice of whether to offer net metering is a matter for individual suppliers. At least one supplier, TXU, has already done so. Net metering, where electricity exports are purchased by suppliers at the same rate as they charge for energy consumed, is likely to result in suppliers incurring some costs—which I do not want to exaggerate. I do not want the Government effectively to force suppliers to subsidise one class of customer against another, but I want to encourage them down that road. I hope that my hon. Friend takes encouragement from that.
172WH
My hon. Friend said that our PV programme should be more ambitious. As I said, this is just a start. It would be extremely unfortunate and very difficult to defend if Britain lagged far behind, or at least was not on a similar level to, the work done in Germany and Japan. We have a great deal of catching up to do on the PV programme, and we will look at his various innovative ideas about how to support that. I will send a copy of the whole debate to the performance and innovation unit so that it can take account of all hon. Members' contributions before it makes its recommendations later this year. My hon. Friend's point about the evolution of power in his own area of Stafford is an interesting one and we will certainly look at it. Any information that he wants to bring to my attention is welcome. We should take account of his idea of case studies of clusters of best practice that other areas can draw on, for their benefit and that of the wider agenda.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I believe that the debate will stand the test of time as having given an important impetus to the whole renewables agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

TREASURY

  IR35
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the additional costs of benefit entitlements by contractors deemed to be employees under IR35. [157110]

  Dawn Primarolo
  IR35 does not affect the employment rights of any worker employed through a personal service company in any way

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revisions he plans to make to the Inland Revenue rules consequent upon the judgment of the IR35 case. [157099]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The court dismissed the challenge to the legislation on service provision by intermediaries. The Inland Revenue will review the guidance material used by its staff regarding the interpretation of the law.

  Foster Carers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response the Inland Revenue has made to the representations from foster carers' or organisations and the Department of Health regarding its proposals for taxing payments to foster carers. [157067]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is working with the Department of Health and a number of organisations representing foster carers to design a simple method by which foster carers can choose to calculate the income tax due on the reward element of their payments using standard, agreed, costs. Alternatively, foster carers would be able to rely upon actual costs. The Inland Revenue plans to introduce the new arrangements as soon as practicable. In the interim, the Inland Revenue will maintain existing agreements for calculating the reward element of payments, in accordance with representations made by care organisations.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) maximum and (b) minimum total cost to public funds of the foot and mouth outbreak. [157007]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury, MAFF and other interested Departments are keeping a range of possible outcomes under review. At this stage it is not possible to estimate the final cost of the outbreak with any reliability.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time with HM Customs and Excise in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [155305]
  240W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: Staff in post figures for Customs and Excise are published in the Cabinet Office's "Civil Service Staff in Post" summaries, copies of which are in the Library.

  In 1999–2000 there were an average of 1,322 full-time and 80 part-time staff employed in Scotland by HM Customs and Excise. The equivalent figures for the UK were 21,522 full-time and 2,029 part-time.

  For 2000–01, Scotland had an average of 1,206 full-time and 87 part-time staff. In the UK as a whole 20,965 full-time and 2,133 part-time staff were employed.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) personal computers, (b) printers, (c) fax machines, (d) servers and (e) vehicles were based in HM Customs and Excise in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [155306]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Year ending March 2000

  Year ending March 2001

  UK

  of which Scotland

  UK

  of which Scotland

  Faxes

  775

  123

  801

  80

  Personal Computers

  18,533

  1,084

  19,615

  1,097

  Printers

  4,792

  225

  4,536

  168

  Servers

  533

  34

  389

  32

  Vehicles:

  Cars

  1,595

  65

  1,780

  79

  Commercial

  57

  5

  77

  5

  Note:

  The reduction in the number of printers and servers recorded in March 2001 are as a result of the efficiency savings implemented by ICL.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time equivalent staff were employed as HM Customs and Excise officers in British(a) airports and (b) ports in each of the last 10 years. [157033]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information in the form requested is not available for previous years.

  Currently (April 2000), there are approximately 2,113 Customs and Excise staff working in British airports and 2,109 staff working in British ports.

  However, many staff working in customs and anti-smuggling areas are not based at a port or airport, or in the UK. They are excluded from the figures.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what data he collects on the income distribution of recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit with incomes over £250 per week. [157048]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) application form requires applicants to report their earnings, and those of their partner (if any). Statistical analyses of WFTC awards are based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards in Great Britain. Subject to sampling error, this sample can be used to generate information on the number of WFTC recipients according to bands of gross weekly earnings of the main earner.
  241W
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) with respect to Table 5.3 of the Working Families Tax Credit Statistics, Quarterly Inquiry, August 2000, what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the average tax credit awards payable to(a) managers and administrators and (b) taxi drivers; [156833]

  (2) if he will list for Table 5.3 of the Working Families Tax Credit Statistics, Quarterly Inquiry, August 2000, the average incomes for each occupation type who are in receipt of tax credits. [156832]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the average gross weekly earnings of the main earner in families receiving Working Families Tax Credit at August 2000 and who fall into each of the occupation types listed in the table referred to.

  The average gross weekly earnings of main earners who are managers and administrators and included in the table is higher than the overall average, and the average gross weekly earnings of main earners who are taxi drivers is lower.

  Average gross weekly earnings of the main earner in families receiving Working Families Tax Credit at August 2000, by occupation of the main earner

  £

  All occupations

  158

  Managers and administrators

  174

  Professional occupations

  188

  Associated professional and technical occupations

  190

  of which:

  Scientific technicians

  205

  Health and social welfare associate professionals

  184

  Clerical and secretarial occupations

  174

  of which:

  Administrative officers below EO grades in Civil Service/Local Government

  208

  Clerks and cashiers

  163

  Receptionists and telephonists

  157

  Secretaries and typists

  181

  Other clerical occupations

  183

  Craft and related occupations (non-managerial workers)

  172

  of which:

  Construction trades, skilled workers

  171

  Metal working, skilled workers

  178

  Food preparation trades

  146

  Personal and protective services

  131

  of which:

  Chefs and cooks

  124

  Hotel porters, kitchen porters, catering assistants, counter hands etc.

  118

  Health and childcare occupations

  143

  Domestic staff

  131

  Cleaners, domestics, window cleaners and road sweepers

  112

  Sales occupations

  134

  of which:

  Sales assistants

  127

  Sales occupations

  145

  Plant and machine operatives

  169

  of which:

  Assemblers/lineworkers on electrical/electronic goods, cars, packers, bottlers, graders, sorters etc.

  178

  Transport and machinery operatives

  203

  Taxi-drivers

  100

  Other occupations

  179

  242W
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the waiting time is for receipt of Working Families Tax Credit application forms following an initial request. [156971]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit helpline aims to send out application packs to callers within 48 hours of a request being made to it. It sends out application packs by first-class post, and is currently up to date processing such requests.

  Fiscal Intervention
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) of 7 December 2000,Official Report, column 2W, on fiscal intervention, what the average price per ounce was of gold at each phase of the gold sell-off; what quantity was sold at each phase; and what quantity of euros were bought. [157028]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The results of the 11 bimonthly gold auctions held since July 1999, including the allotment price per ounce and the amount of gold allotted, are published in Bank of England Press Notices issued on the day of each auction. Copies of the Press Notices have been placed in the House of Commons Library and can be found on the Bank of England's website (www.bankofengland.co.uk).

  E-Commerce
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 190 what EU legislation is planned in respect of(a) distance marketing of financial services and (b) the application of VAT to electronic commerce. [157399]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A proposal from the European Commission for a directive on distance marketing of financial services is currently under discussion in the Council. A proposal from the European Commission to change the VAT rules relating to certain e-commerce supplies is also currently under discussion by member states.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical 146 information relating as directly as possible to the Eccles constituency, the effects on Eccles of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157287]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Eccles, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and
  131 secure and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 812, or 36 per cent., youth 134 unemployment is down by 78 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 78 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare to work and to make work pay. To the end of January 2001, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 843 young people in Eccles constituency gain valuable skills and experience—419 (50 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in

  243W
  October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,800 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 17,500 in Eccles, are receiving an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners receive an extra £5 a week, and couples receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 7,500 in Eccles.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157130]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Amber Valley, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 516, or 25 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 87 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of January 2001, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 789 young people in Amber Valley constituency gain valuable skills and experience—406 (51 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,200 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 17,100 in Amber Valley, are receiving an above-inflation increase in the basic State Pension from April 2001. Single pensioners receive an extra £5 a week, and couples receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 7,500 in Amber Valley.

  VAT Fraud
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department in each year since 1997 of complex VAT fraud; and if he will make a statement. [156899]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate is available, relating specifically to the costs to Customs and Excise of complex VAT fraud in each year since 1997.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contraventions of(a) section 3 and (b) section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 have been referred to the (i) police and (ii) High Court since April 1998. [154997]
  244W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions were made at the meeting of the Policyholders Protection Board on 21 March which will have implications for sufferers of asbestos-related diseases. [156478]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: I understand that the board has been working very closely with the run-off management of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited, and subsequently with the scheme administrators. I am informed that, at its meeting on 21 March, the board decided that payments should be made as soon as possible to Chester Street policyholders whose eligibility for protection under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 is established.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Digital Television
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Office of Fair Trading's report into BSkyB; and what his Department's policy is on promoting choice and competition within the digital television market. [R] [157041]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading inquiry into the activities of BSkyB was made under the Competition Act 1998. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will not therefore receive a formal report at the end of the process. The Director-General of Fair Trading will, however, keep my right hon. Friend informed of key developments. The Director-General expects to reach a view on whether or not an infringement decision should be issued against BSkyB by this summer.

  The Department of Trade and Industry supports choice and competition within the digital television market by supporting the development of all three digital platforms; cable, satellite and terrestrial.

  Aiwa Factory, Newbridge
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received on the prospect of job losses at the Aiwa factory in Newbridge in Wales; [156576]

  (2) what representations he has received from the owners of Aiwa on the prospect of job losses at the Aiwa factory in Newbridge in Wales. [156578]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: I have not received any representations in respect of the prospect of job losses at the Aiwa factory in Newbridge in Wales.

  With the transfer of devolved powers to the National Assembly for Wales, such representations would be referred to it.

  I understand that the company has issued a press statement rebutting the press reports of possible job losses at Newbridge.
  245W
  Officials at the WDA, DTI and our embassy in Tokyo are in close contact with the company and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Partnerships
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to consult on the removal of the 20 partner limit on partnerships. [157149]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce to the House that I have today published a consultation document proposing the removal of the 20 partner limit on partnerships.

  Consultation on the abolition of the limit on the number of partners allowed in a partnership was announced as one of the Government's measures to reduce the red-tape on business by means of a Regulatory Reform Order. The removal of the 20 partner limit is a deregulatory measure that will ease the administrative burdens on larger partnerships that wish to expand.

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Marks and Spencer Call Centre (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to assist staff affected by the proposed closure of the Marks and Spence Call Centre and Fulfilment operations in Warrington; and if he will make a statement. [156983]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Northwest Development Agency has met the local management team at Marks and Spencers in Warrington and discussed possible assistance, including access to the Rapid Response Fund. Other partners, including the Employment Service, Cheshire and Warrington Local Learning and Skills Council and Warrington Borough Council are also ready to provide support and guidance to staff affected.

  Britain-Israel Technology Fund
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of Britech. [156388]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The Britain-Israel Technology Fund—"Britech"—was established by an intergovernmental agreement between the UK and Israel and each country is contributing £7.75 million over five years. It is being administered by The Britech Foundation Limited, which was incorporated in the UK on 27 October 1999 and has offices in both countries. To date six projects have been fully approved and £1.9 million funds committed; seven projects are under consideration; and a further nine project proposals are being finalised.

DEFENCE

  Defence Medical Services
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. [157531]
  246W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Supplement to the 2001 Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body making recommendations on the pay of Service medical and dental officers has been published today. Copies of the Supplement are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their work in producing this Supplement.

  In line with the increase recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body, the Review Body recommends an overall pay increase for Defence Medical Services medical and dental officers of 3.9 per cent. The Review Body also recommends a 6.2 per cent. increase for certain categories of junior doctors and a 4.2 per cent. increase for general medical practitioners, inclusive of the overall 3.9 per cent. increase. In addition, there are recommendations for additional payments to general medical and general dental practitioners' pay scales.

  The additional cost to the Defence Budget will be £4.5 million. This will be met within existing departmental expenditure limits.

  The Review Body's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2001.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department will be reimbursed by the Treasury in the event of(a) a delay in and (b) cancellation of the New DERA flotation. [154164]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence will receive a credit to the Defence Budget of at least £250 million in financial year 2001–02 in respect of the Public Private Partnership for DERA. This does not depend on whether the transaction has taken place, nor does the amount give an indication of the likely value of New DERA.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Incinerators
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many dioxin tests have been conducted on(a) Byker employees and (b) employees working at other incineration plants since 1979; and if he will place the results in the Library; [155383]

  (2) how many dioxin tests have been conducted on employees working on the demolition of incineration plants since 1979; and if he will place the results in the Library; [155384]

  (3) if he will list the studies carried out into health of employees who have worked at the Byker incinerator; [155380]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the advice given to Byker employees covering the health effects of working with incinerators. [155385]
  247W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not received any requests from Byker employees or trade unions for advice on the potential health effects of working with incinerators or for requests for studies into the health of employees. HSE considers that the Environment Agency's current legislation is such that the potential exposure of employees to dioxins is very low.

  Exposure to dioxins (both environmental and workplace) can be measured using blood tests. Blood tests are invasive and are not normally carried out unless there is a clear need or concern expressed by those involved. They are also time consuming and expensive. Under these circumstances, they are unlikely to yield useful information. Consequently HSE has not carried out dioxin tests on employees at incinerator plants or those involved in the demolition of these plants and does not believe that random blood tests are necessary.

  The only health effects from dioxins which could be detected by health checks is the skin condition, chloracne. This only occurs at high exposures, for example as a result of industrial accidents, and consequently checks for this condition would not be of value at exposure levels associated with incinerators.

  In the absence of investigations due to accidents, reports of ill health and complaints, HSE's inspectorates carry out its elective work guided by priorities. In 1995 HSE's inspectorate rated the health risks at the Byker plant as 'medium' and on reassessment in 1999 and 2000 as 'low'. The assessment included examination of the general standards of ventilation and cleanliness etc. at this medium-sized plant which employs approximately 20 people. These ratings did not indicate a need proactively to supply information to Byker employees or trade unions on the potential health effects of working with incinerators.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the burial sites(a) in use and (b) being constructed for the purpose of burying the carcases of animals in connection with the prevention of foot and mouth disease comply with (i) the provisions regarding the protection of groundwater in the EU Groundwater Directive of 1978 and (ii) the provisions of the EU directive on the landfill of waste of April 1999 concerning arrangements for the protection of soil and water via leachate collection and bottom sealing. [156820]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are aware of the need to comply with all relevant EU Directives during the current foot and mouth outbreak. The principal Directive concerning animal burial is the Animal Waste Directive (90/667/EEC), Article 3(2) of which contains requirements for environmental protection. These requirements are met through close co-operation between this Department, MAFF and the Environment Agency, and through the authorisation procedure in the Groundwater Directive. The Agency continues to carry out an assessment of both existing and proposed burial sites and, subject to the risk, authorises the burial imposing any necessary conditions for the protection of groundwater.

  London Underground Strike
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the RMT on the London Underground strike; and if he will make a statement. [156777]

  Mr. Hill
  I have received no direct representations from the RMT about the Underground strike, which is an operational matter for London Underground.

  The Government regret the disruption which Underground passengers will have suffered. The recent strikes have brought unnecessary inconvenience to London. This is not a dispute about safety, which will continue to be overseen by the independent Health and Safety Executive.

  Ministerial Discussions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the RMT on transport issues in the last year. [156778]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers have extensive dealings with organisations in both the public and private sectors as part of their official duties, which have included some meetings with the RMT.

  It would be impracticable to maintain a central record of such meetings.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) inspectors and (b) inspector hours per year were devoted to inspecting experimental releases of genetically modified organisms in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999 and (v) 2000 to ensure consent conditions were complied with; how many breaches of consents were detected in these years; and how many resulted in prosecutions. [156463]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The information is given in the table. Figures exclude Scotland from 1 April 2000 as the Scottish Executive have had independent inspection arrangements since then. The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) took over responsibility from HSE for inspections in England and Wales on 1 June 2000.

  Inspections of GMO releases 1996 to 2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number of inspectors

  1

  2

  2

  1

  11

  25

  Days per year spent on inspections

  110.75

  156.1

  132.2

  124.7

  173.5

  2111

  Number of breaches of consent3

  0

  3

  5

  0

  1

  Number of prosecutions

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1 HSE

  2 CSL

  3 The figures reported for 1997 and 1998 show the instances where in the opinion of the HSE inspector releases were not being carried out in accordance with the release consents. Details were provided in my replies of 17 December 1998, Official Report. column 630W, and 4 February 1999, Official Report, column 720W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). Two cases resulted in prosecutions.

  249W
  The breach of consent in 2000 was reported by Aventis at two of its small-scale research and development trial sites of GM sugar beet (consent reference 00/R33/02). This consent authorised the release of sugar beet plants genetically modified for tolerance to glufosinate herbicide. At the end of the trials approximately 0.5 per cent. of the plants were found to be of a GM line that was also tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate and were not covered by the consent. CSL investigated this matter to ensure that volunteer GM beet plants were controlled and that measures are in place to prevent a recurrence. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment was informed and concluded that there was no increased risk to human health or the environment. Aventis will be required to conduct additional monitoring of the affected sites in 2001.

  Green Ministers Committee
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets were agreed at the meeting on 19 March of the Green Ministers Committee for(a) the purchase of renewable energy by Departments and (b) the reduction of water consumption by the Government estate. [156905]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Green Ministers Committee agreed in principle a target to purchase renewable electricity, the details of which would be pursued through ministerial correspondence. We also agreed the following water targets:For offices in metered buildings where the Department is sole occupier or is billed the water services charges: all Departments should achieve a maximum level of water consumption equivalent to 11 cubic metres per person (full-time equivalent staff) by 31 March 2002, and a further 30 per cent. reduction over the next two years, achieving a level of 7.7 cubic metres by 31 March 2004.
  For other metered buildings (e.g. laboratories, law courts and depots) where the Department is sole occupier or is billed the water services charges: all Departments should establish benchmarks under the Watermark Project for main categories of non-office buildings by 31 October 2001 with the aim of setting percentage targets for achieving initial reductions in Departments' water use within the following year (by 31 March 2002).

LORD CHANCELOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will demonstrate its ability to comply with health and safety legislation after its inauguration on 1 April. [156998]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) is devising a health and safety policy. In the interim, CAFCASS has adopted the inherited health and safety policies and procedures.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the regional managers for England and Wales will be appointed to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. [156997]
  250W
  Jane Kennedy
  All area manager appointments to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) structure have been made and six of the 10 are now in post. Interim arrangements for the remaining four areas are in place with acting area managers in post.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will be represented on area child protection committees. [156999]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Health will be issuing a letter to the Chairs of Area Child Protection Committees requiring the inclusion of CAFCASS in the core membership of Area Child Protection Committees. CAFCASS will ask the National Assembly for Wales to make a similar requirement.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how local child protection procedures will cover Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service employees. [157000]

  Jane Kennedy
  All Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) staff will be expected to work to local area child protection procedures, as did the predecessor agencies. Core membership of Area Child Protection Committees will reinforce this requirement.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when formal employer and trade union negotiating structures will be in place(a) nationally and (b) locally for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. [157001]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) recognises the value to the service of a good working relationship with trade unions. CAFCASS, which was established on 1 April 2001, met with trade union representatives on 4 April 2001. CAFCASS wants to develop a robust consultation and negotiating mechanism as quickly as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed at the Stockholm European Council the effects of the UK's obligations under EU treaties and directives on the UK's scope to make decisions, with particular reference to the environment and vaccination, in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak in the United Kingdom. [156377]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on the Stockholm Council.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason no hon. Members from rural constituencies were invited to meet him during his recent visit to Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [156989]

  The Prime Minister
  I went to the hon. Member for Worcester's constituency and was accompanied by him throughout my visit.
  251W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister what representatives of(a) farming and (b) tourism interests from the district council area of Wychavon he met during his recent visit to Worcestershire: and if he will make a statement. [156991]

  The Prime Minister
  I met farming and tourism local representatives.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his recent visit to Worcestershire with(a) officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (b) representatives of the Ministry of Defence and (c) hon. Members for constituencies in Worcestershire concerning the possible locations of a mass burial site for animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [156990]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed various aspects of the foot and mouth disease eradication strategy, including the need for additional disposal routes, with farmers and business representatives, officials, members of the armed forces and others in Worcester on 27 March. Decisions on the use of specific burial or other sites are a matter for MAFF, in consultation with the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities and others.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to set up an independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [157038]

  The Prime Minister
  We have made it clear that at the conclusion of the foot and mouth outbreak we will sit down and see what lessons can be learned. This is normal good practice after any episode of this kind. However, the form that this exercise will take has not been decided. Our top priority is to focus on implementing the mechanisms to control and eradicate the disease.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the evidence submitted to him on foot and mouth disease by the Soil Association. [157008]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received no formal submission from the Soil Association. I am, however, aware from meetings that it favours the use of vaccination, which remains under active consideration as an option in the strategy for eradicating the disease.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) policemen and (b) policewomen there were in the Romsey constituency in (a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [155858]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: The Romsey section is covered by the Eastleigh division of the Hampshire constabulary. The force's records do not make it possible to provide information for 1992 for the Romsey section. The available information is set out in the table and has been provided by the chief constable.
  252W

  Eastleigh division

  Number of police officers

  Eastleigh divisional total

  Romsey section

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  December 1992

  96

  20

  1—

  1—

  March 1997

  96

  21

  38

  3

  March 20012

  134

  33

  34

  5

  1Not available

  2Boundary changes in April 2000 resulted in the extension of the Eastleigh division to include Hedge End and Netley

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) nature and (b) duration of delays to casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate caused by (i) installation of new computer systems and (ii) organisational and accommodation changes. [156093]

  Mrs. Roche
  Casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is supported on Information Technology systems from Siemens Business Services and other operational systems used in the Immigration Service and the National Asylum Support Service. The number of terminals have expanded across the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in line with increasing numbers of staff and office locations

  Casework handling has been improved by extended use of Information Technology in the Immigration Service during 2000 and 2001 and by better arrangements to exchange data between different systems.

  Departmental Policies (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [156784]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library.

  The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime,

  253W
  cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the High Peak constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Derbyshire Constabulary were awarded £317,000 under round two of the Targeted Policing Initiative for a project which includes: mapping of the drug markets, identifying key routes and routes of supply, analysing information about the market and the production of an individual strategy for each market. The mapping of drug markets will allow for the creation of a dynamic approach to tackling the problem.

  Derbyshire police, in partnership with other forces, were awarded £90,000 under round two of the Targeted Policing Initiative for a project focusing on distraction burglary. The project will undertake research into the distraction burglary problem, its true extent, how offenders target victims and how offenders can be deterred once they have selected a potential target.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  High Peak borough council was awarded approximately £61,000 for a three-camera scheme covering Whaley Bridge town centre. The scheme aims to reduce the number of assaults by 11 per cent. and burglary and criminal damage by 20 per cent. over three years. It also intends to reduce the fear of crime in the town centre.

  High Peak borough council has two bids shortlisted for further consideration totalling over £192,000 under round two of the initiative. These bids, if successful will be to extend the Buxton CCTV system and to provide a High Peak Mobile CCTV system.

  Youth Offending

  High Peak is covered by the Derbyshire Youth Offending Team (YOT). The Government have introduced multi-agency YOTs to deliver local youth justice services and work with young offenders and those at risk. These teams have been in operation across the country since 1 April 2000.

  The Derbyshire YOT is providing Appropriate Adult services for young people when interviewed by police and has dealt with 242 requests for their services between April and December 2000. The Derbyshire YOT is utilising the ASSET assessment system in order to ensure intervention work is effectively targeted at the personal, family, social, educational and health problems that contribute to the causes of a young person's offending behaviour. The health staff attached to the YOT are carrying out basic assessments of young offenders for substance misuse and, where appropriate, referring them on to specialist substance misuse services for young people.

  The police officers seconded to the Derbyshire and Derby City YOT have delivered 50 training sessions on the final warning scheme to over 1,200 police officers in order to ensure consistency of police assessment and referral to the YOTs. More than 12 community reparation schemes have been established throughout Derbyshire in order to allow the YOTs to deliver victim-offender mediation services. There is a wide range of activities available to meet the needs of the young person and provide opportunities for further development through accredited training and skills.
  254W
  Derbyshire is benefiting from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) development fund which has awarded grants of approximately £613,000 over three years for two bail support schemes and two intervention programmes in the county.

  The Derbyshire YOT also received funding from the YJB and the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme to run a Splash scheme during the summer holidays in 2000. The scheme provided various activity schemes for young people most at risk of offending in four wards of Bolsover. This resulted in a marked reduction in nuisance calls and offending in the local area.

  The Derbyshire YOT is also benefiting from funding from the National Lottery to operate a community sports initiative in Clay Cross. The initiative is currently being implemented.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of High Peak to a greater or lesser extent. For example:

  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;

  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and

  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Wandsworth Police
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the robbery/burglary squad at Wandsworth police was abolished; and for what reason. [156171]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The deployment of resources and arrangements put in place to fight crime are operational matters for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Divisional Commander for the Wandsworth Division.

  I understand from the Commissioner that the Wandsworth Division's Robbery/Burglary Squad was reformed on 1 March 2000 into a new Crime Squad with the objective that it should concentrate on proactive investigation of robbery and burglary by the application of intelligence led methods. I am told that the Wandsworth division's more proactive approach to robbery and burglary has resulted in a number of suspects being arrested and remanded into custody, and that there has been a notable drop in offences as a result.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what range of payments in cash and in kind is made available to(a) asylum seekers awaiting determination of their claim and (b) asylum seekers who are granted admission to the United Kingdom by way of (i) grants, (ii) loans and (iii) specific access to social security payments. [155551]
  255W
  Mrs. Roche
  The new support arrangements for destitute asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 came into force on 3 April 2000. Under these arrangements the Home Office has taken over responsibility for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers.

  Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits, prior to 3 April 2000 will be transitionally protected and will continue to be eligible to claim Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. However, benefit is not payable to asylum seekers appealing against the refusal of refugee status. Asylum seekers who no longer qualify for social security benefits, and who have no other means of support, will be eligible for assistance from the National Asylum Support Service.

  Under the new arrangements, asylum seekers receive support from the National Asylum Support Service in kind (vouchers), with a small cash allowance to meet incidental expenses. Where accommodation is provided the cost of this, and utilities are met centrally.

  The Home Office also pays grants to local authorities (within fixed unit cost limits) to enable them to provide accommodation and essential living needs to asylum seekers under the interim arrangements. It is for local authorities to decide the best way to provide support to asylum seekers, within the terms of the interim scheme.

  Those asylum seekers whose applications are determined favourably and who are awarded refugee status or exceptional leave are eligible for social security benefits. Those who are awarded full refugee status may qualify for a retrospective payment of Income Support, calculated as the difference between the benefit they would have received and the support paid to them by the National Asylum Support Service. Refugees will also be eligible for a backdated payment of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for any unmet rent and council tax liabilities while their asylum application was determined.

  Youth Offending Teams
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) evaluation and (b) multi-disciplinary inspection of the work of individual youth offending teams has been undertaken; if he will publish the evaluation results to date; what plans there are for further inspection of youth offending teams; and if he will make a statement. [156996]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The operation of youth offending teams and the programmes they run are subject to a range of independent evaluation and monitoring commissioned and operated by the Youth Justice Board. Interim evaluation reports will be published this spring on intervention programmes and bail support schemes. The Sheffield University evaluation of the piloting of youth offending teams in 10 areas from October 1998 has been published as a Home Office Occasional Paper and is available in the Library.

  Two youth offending team inspections have been carried out by multi-disciplinary inspection teams who are considering their reports. The Youth Justice Board is considering the future conduct of inspection and its monitoring functions.

  Crime (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of banning handguns on reducing crime in the Shrewsbury Division of West Mercia Constabulary. [156515]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The legislation to prohibit handguns introduced in 1997 was a response to the tragic shootings at Dunblane primary school in 1996 in which 16 children and their teacher lost their lives. It was not expected in itself to solve the wider problem of the criminal use of firearms.

  I understand that West Mercia Constabulary recorded
  17 firearms incidents in the Shropshire area in 1999 and 12 such incidents in 2000. There has been one such incident so far this year. West Mercia Constabulary have not identified any particular problem with handgun crime or other armed crime in the Shrewsbury area.

  Organised Crime
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle organised crime; and if he will make a statement. [157530]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are making £90 million available over the next three years (2001–2004) to help tackle organised crime. The use of the money will be concentrated against heroin and cocaine trafficking, in support of the Government's strategy "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", and against people smuggling. Our approach in tackling both forms of crime as set out in the publication "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" is to encourage a co-ordinated inter-agency effort and the additional funding will be allocated to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the security and intelligence agencies.

  These additional funds will provide the means for effective new collaborative operational effort against these forms of organised crime, adding to the measures which we have announced recently for a Criminal Assets Recovery Agency and a High-tech crime strategy, for which we have also provided additional resources.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which buildings and premises(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department use (i) chlorofluorocarbons and (ii) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other energy needs; and if he will give details of such use and the reasons for it; [153015]

  (2) what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of (a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other energy needs of buildings and

  257W
  premises (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department (1) in the UK and (2) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement; [153018]

  (3) to what extent (a) the new GCHQ building in Cheltenham and (b) other buildings (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department use hydrofluorocarbons for refrigeration or air conditioning; how much hydrofluorocarbon has been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (1) purchase and (2) use of hydrofluorocarbons. [153017]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office complies fully with the phase-out timetable as agreed in the Montreal Protocol of 1987, and the subsequent revisions laid down by European Commission Regulation 594/91. With the exception of domestic refrigerators (which will be replaced at the end of their natural cycle) all CFC refrigerants and Halon firefighting equipment have been replaced in FCO buildings both at home and overseas.

  To date resources have been committed to the eradication of chlorofluorocarbons and Halons, but work is now commencing on the eradication of hydrofluorocarbons. Currently, HCFCs are used extensively throughout the FCO estate, almost exclusively for domestic refrigerators and air conditioning equipment. But extensive use is made of hermetically sealed units which cannot be topped up and therefore pose a minimal risk to the Ozone Layer.

  The consortium constructing the new GCHQ building in Cheltenham is using HFC 143A—a zero ozone depleting product which is considered a long-term replacement for CFCs and HCFCs. It is FCO policy that all new buildings under FCO control are charged with synthetic refrigerants. Use of synthetic refrigerant gas is also increasing in larger air conditioning systems, as new or replacement equipment is installed, although progress has been restricted to date by the limited alternatives available in the marketplace.

  Information on the use of HCFCs in buildings owned and leased by the FCO, at home and overseas, and on the amount of HCFCs purchased since 1995, is not held centrally and could not be assembled without disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries (Free Admission)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the cost in lost admission revenue to each of the national museums and galleries which charge admission fees of introducing universal free admission. [153438]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The table shows the amounts of compensation I have currently allocated to the existing charging museums for the next three years. I am though currently finalising with these institutions the final element of compensation to "buy out" the previously planned £1 charge from 1 December 2001.
  258W

  £ million

  Museum

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Museum of Science and Industry in

  Manchester

  0.485

  0.679

  0.692

  Museum of London

  0.162

  0.217

  0.323

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1.213

  1.545

  1.776

  National Maritime Museum

  1.891

  2.442

  2.491

  Royal Armouries

  0.504

  0.726

  0.740

  Imperial War Museum

  1.484

  2.446

  2.500

  Science Museum

  3.978

  5.735

  5.849

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1.382

  2.163

  2.206

  Natural History Museum

  4.175

  5.927

  6.045

  Tate St. Ives

  0.253

  0.355

  0.362

  Total

  15.527

  22.235

  22.984

  Somerset House
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the occupation by the Inland Revenue of premises at Somerset House; and if he will make a statement. [156148]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the Inland Revenue's occupation at Somerset House. The Inland Revenue occupy accommodation in the New, West and East Wings of Somerset House under the terms of a 25 years lease from the Somerset House Trust, who are responsible for the overall management of the building. The Inland Revenue are aware of a proposal made to the Somerset House Trust by Christies to take over the existing lease on the New and West Wings. The response to this proposal is a matter for the Trust in the first instance.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with (a) UK Sport and (b) the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority about the costs of staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [156364]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet UK Sport from time to time to discuss a range of issues including attracting major sporting events like the 2005 IAAF World Athletics Championships to the UK. These discussions include the costs and benefits of staging such events in the UK.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed the 2005 Championships with the Mayor of London on 23 March.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his latest estimate is of the likely date for the repayment of £20 million lottery funding by Wembley National Stadium Ltd., to the Sports Lottery Fund. [156366]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: We expect the repayment of £20 million of the lottery grant awarded by Sport England to be made within the time frame agreed in December 1999, and as set out in the

  259W
  recent Select Committee hearing attended by both my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and myself. Under the agreement, the final payment is due to be made by December 2004.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the BBC and Channel 4 to join the independent to television companies in promoting the new digital kite mark designed to help consumers identify genuine digital to televisions; and if he will make a statement. [R] [157040]

  Janet Anderson
  This is a matter for the BBC and Channel 4. I understand, however, that the BBC is considering how best to raise public awareness of the DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting Project) logo, which distinguishes digital TV sets from analogue TV sets, as part of its ongoing promotion of digital services. Channel 4 has also been promoting its digital services in recent months and has indicated that it is prepared to participate in pan-industry initiatives to promote digital television, including the use of the DVB logo.

  Lee Valley Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to underwrite the cost of(a) developing the proposed new athletics stadium at Picketts Lock and (b) staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [156363]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: We are fully committed to the successful staging of the IAFF World Athletics Championships in 2005 at the new Lee Valley Stadium. The Government are currently working with the project team to reduce the gap between the funding committed and the likely costs of the project, which are estimated overall to be between £83 million and £87 million.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what firm commitments he has received from(a) Sport England, b) The Lee Valley Forum, (c) UK Sport and (d) other sources for the funding of the proposed new athletics stadium at Picketts Lock. [156365]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Sport England have allocated within their budget up to £60 million to the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre. A further £7 million is available from the Lottery Sports Fund for the dedicated high performance centre which will be integrated with the stadium. Both these sums are subject to a satisfactory application for lottery funding being made.

  The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority have committed £5 million to the project UK Sport does not fund capital projects of this kind.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social 260W
  Security (1) on how many occasions (a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have met decision makers within the Benefits Agency; [157043]

  (2) for how long decision makers have decided on cases within the Benefits Agency; [157042]

  (3) since when it has not been possible for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency to change a decision made by decision makers; and on what authority this change was made; [157044]

  (4) how many decision makers there are in the Benefits Agency; on what basis they are appointed; and what the level of their salary is; [157045]

  (5) if hon. Members may write on behalf of constituents direct to decision makers within the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement. [157046]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers regularly visit staff within Benefits Agency offices.

  Suitably trained and experienced staff make decisions. Staff are not recruited specifically as decision makers and may be of various grades; therefore, exact numbers are not available. The salary level of decision makers will vary according to grade.

  Since the Benefits Agency was established in April 1991, it has never been possible for the Chief Executive to change a benefit decision made by a decision maker. It is only possible to change a benefit decision in accordance with the legislation.

  Benefit decision notices encourage customers to contact the appropriate office if they want to know more about a decision or think it is wrong. Any queries received are directed to an appropriate officer to respond. If necessary the query will be directed to a decision maker to provide a response. Queries from customer representatives are dealt with in the same way.

  Hon. Members are of course free to write to whomever they wish. However, it has been the accepted practice that, where a response is required on an individual case, the approach is made to the local office manager.

  The Social Security Act 1998 transferred the functions of adjudication officers to the Secretary of State. Under new arrangements, all first instance Social Security decisions are made by officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Benefits Agency introduced the term "decision maker" during the period July to November 1999 when these provisions were introduced.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 91W, if the new test for national insurance numbers will apply when child reference numbers are converted into national insurance numbers. [157279]

  Mr. Rooker
  No.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for(a) revisions and (b) supersessions were received in each month since November 1999. [154838]
  261W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Disability Living Allowance requests for reconsiderations1 and supersessions received in each month since November 1999

  Month

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  November 1999

  16,012

  12,760

  December 1999

  10,419

  8,056

  January 2000

  6,691

  3,091

  February 2000

  6,201

  14,148

  March 2000

  7,886

  15, 518

  April 2000

  6,361

  11,759

  May 2000

  8,433

  14,713

  June 2000

  9,346

  14,284

  July 2000

  10,924

  14,357

  August 2000

  10,812

  12,691

  September 2000

  8,830

  12,148

  October 2000

  9,634

  13,359

  November 2000

  9,454

  13,662

  December 2000

  6,198

  8,330

  January 2001

  8,925

  14,508

  February 2001

  8,566

  13,938

  1 Reconsiderations are revisions under the new system of decision making and appeals which was introduced in October 1999

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of decisions on a request for(a) revision and (b) supersession were made in favour of the claimant in each month since November 1999. [154835]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of Disability Living Allowance reconsideration and supersession decisions made in favour of the claimant in each month from November 1999

  Month

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  November 1999

  24

  65

  December 1999

  21

  54

  January 2000

  25

  50

  February 2000

  25

  50

  March 2000

  26

  50

  April 2000

  26

  49

  May 2000

  25

  48

  June 2000

  23

  47

  July 2000

  26

  53

  August 2000

  27

  53

  September 2000

  30

  53

  October 2000

  31

  53

  November 2000

  31

  53

  December 2000

  31

  53

  January 2001

  31

  52

  February 2001

  31

  53

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of(a) initial claims, (b) renewal claims, (c) reviews and (d) appeals were decided in favour of the claimant in each quarter of each year since 1996. [154837]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.
  262W

  Percentage of Disability Living Allowance initial claim, renewal claim, review and appeal decisions made in favour of the claimant in each quarter since 1996

  Quarter

  Initial claims

  Renewal claims

  Reviews1

  Appeals

  March 1996

  48

  85

  41

  60

  June 1996

  47

  84

  41

  63

  September 1996

  47

  83

  41

  38

  December 1996

  47

  83

  60

  56

  March 1997

  46

  82

  40

  38

  June 1997

  45

  80

  59

  54

  September 1997

  45

  79

  39

  35

  December 1997

  46

  79

  56

  51

  March 1998

  46

  77

  34

  47

  June 1998

  45

  77

  34

  48

  September 1998

  46

  78

  34

  47

  December 1998

  46

  79

  34

  48

  March 1999

  46

  79

  33

  49

  June 1999

  46

  80

  33

  49

  September 1999

  47

  81

  33

  48

  December 1999

  51

  81

  33

  48

  March 2000

  52

  80

  36

  47

  June 2000

  51

  81

  39

  47

  September 2000

  50

  84

  43

  46

  December 2000

  51

  85

  43

  48

  1Includes reconsiderations and supersessions under the revised system of decision making and appeals introduced in October 1999.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

  Benefit Claim Forms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the application forms for benefit claims. [156701]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are determined to ensure that all those entitled to claim a benefit can do so with the minimum of inconvenience. The Department is currently developing a new Minimum Income Guarantee claim form. The lessons learned from that work are being extended to other benefits.

  State Pension
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the role of the basic pension is in overall pension provision in the UK. [156552]

  Mr. Rooker
  We aim to give everyone the chance to make their own choices about how they want to provide for their own retirement. The basic state pension is a secure foundation but, by itself, it was never meant to support the lifestyle most people want today. We believe the best way to have a secure retirement is to build up an extra amount on top of the state retirement pension.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have been awarded(a) Income Support and (b) the Minimum Income Guarantee in each quarter since 1997; and how many of these new claims can be attributed to a take-up campaign. [155414]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.
  263W

  Income Support pensioner/Minimum Income Guarantee claims February 1997 to November 2000

  Thousand

  Quarter

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  February

  49.3

  49.3

  50.0

  44.4

  May

  63.8

  49.8

  63.5

  65.6

  August

  52.8

  47.7

  55.9

  73.6

  November

  47.4

  48.6

  51.8

  91.4

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands

  4. Numbers are based on point in time inquiries therefore no account can be taken of influxes and outflows between the dates of inquiries. This will underestimate the true levels of flows onto benefit

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, November 1996 to November 2000

  We are unable to determine the number of claims that have been received as a direct result of the Minimum Income Guarantee take up campaign.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners with preserved rights who are ineligible for local authority support. [156863]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: Information on estimated numbers of pensioners with preserved rights who are ineligible for local authority support is not available.

  Statutory Instruments
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security of how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department each year from 1993 to 1998, inclusive. [156523]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of statutory instruments laid

  Session

  Total

  1993–94

  62

  1994–95

  66

  1995–96

  133

  1996–97

  64

  1997–98

  80

CABINET OFFICE

  General Election Campaigns
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements are in place to ensure that issues of(a) NHS News and (b) NHS Plan News, distributed during a General Election campaign comply with requirements for Government publications during General Election campaigns. [156445]
  264W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Once a General Election is announced, guidance is issued to all Government Departments on questions of procedure and conduct during the period of the Election. This guidance will seek to ensure that no action is taken that could call into question the political impartiality of the Civil Service or give rise to criticism that public funds are being used for party political purposes. The guidance will be made public.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will place in the Library details of the requirements with which Government publications must comply during General Election campaigns. [156446]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Guidance on procedure and conduct during an election is published once an election is announced and will be placed in the Libraries at that time.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Sentencing Criteria
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria he adopts in reviewing the sentences imposed where fatalities have occurred. [155712]

  The Solicitor-General
  When deciding whether a sentence is unduly lenient, I look to the relevant statutory provisions and to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in similar cases. These will guide me when determining the appropriate range of sentence for particular offenders.

  I may only refer sentences that are unduly lenient, not merely lenient. The Court of Appeal has held that an unduly lenient sentence is one which falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, taking into consideration all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.

  Domestic Violence
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the policy adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure the effective prosecution of incidents of domestic violence. [155713]

  The Solicitor-General
  Domestic violence is criminal behaviour. The Crown Prosecution Service regards it as a serious matter and will prosecute wherever it is proper to do so. The CPS recognises that safety, support and information are special priorities for victims of domestic violence and it is in this context that prosecutors will consider the range of prosecution options available.

  The CPS is currently reviewing its policy on prosecuting cases of domestic violence to see if any improvements can be made; its policy has been and will continue to be that stopping domestic violence is a priority for our society. The CPS is committed to working with its partners in the criminal justice system to achieve this and has been consulting widely with the public and voluntary sectors as part of the review.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in Buckinghamshire. [155714]
  265W
  The Solicitor-General
  Following successful implementation of the Narey fast tracking arrangements for magistrates court business in 2000, the Crown Prosecution Service and magistrates court managers in Buckinghamshire have worked hard to promote efficient listing practices in the magistrates courts. As a result, there has been effective deployment of two designated caseworkers to prosecute suitable court lists.

  More recently, Buckinghamshire Crown Prosecution Service has participated with other agencies to secure agreement to an effective protocol for the accelerated sending of indictable only cases to the Crown court from 15 January 2001. This includes convenient arrangements to deal locally with the preliminary Crown court hearing of certain cases where otherwise those hearings would have been dealt with at a Crown court outside the Thames Valley area.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Solicitor-General what improvements have been made to the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [155715]

  The Solicitor-General
  Over the last three years the service has improved its performance in relation to eight key measures: the proportion of advance information sent to the defence within agreed time scales rose from 77.3 per cent. in 1997–98 to 86.6 per cent. in 1999–2000; the proportion of committal papers served on the defence within agreed time scales rose from 50.6 per cent. in 1997–98 to 76.6 per cent. in 2000–01; and the proportion of briefs sent to counsel within agreed time scales rose from 66.3 per cent. in 1997–98 to 77.1 per cent. in 2000–01.

  Over the same period there were also improvements in the timeliness of payment of witness expenses, of replies to complaints and of replies to correspondence from Members of Parliament. More recently and most importantly, there has been a reduction in the number of adverse outcomes of cases attributable to CPS failings.

  Measures relating to the quality of performance are under development to ensure that the improvements set out are matched by progress in the quality of the service provided to CPS customers and to the public.

  In addition to these statistics, which are all reported in the CPS Annual Report, Her Majesty's CPS Inspectorate conduct a rolling inspection programme and each CPS area is scheduled to be inspected every two years. Reports of such area inspections are available to the public.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made in enforcing the Government's policy on racial equality within the Crown Prosecution Service. [155716]

  The Solicitor-General
  An Equality Committee and an Equality and Diversity Unit were set up to turn the Crown Prosecution Service's equality statement into a reality. All staff employed by the CPS are being trained in equality and Diversity (with a specific emphasis on race). In October 2000, at a conference of all senior managers a major part of the programme was concerned with racial equality issues. In February 2001, a one day race event was run for a cross section of 250 members of staff.
  266W
  The Crown Prosecution Service is establishing a systematic approach to monitoring the performance of areas on equality general.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps the Serious Fraud Office is taking to counter money laundering. [155717]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes cases of serious and complex fraud. It will investigate allegations of money laundering where the activities alleged involve or are involved in offences of serious or complex crime.

  The range of offences that can lead to money laundering is wide and varied and includes drugs offences, robbery, theft and tax evasion as well as fraud. As a result, the Serious Fraud Office works in partnership with other prosecuting agencies such as the police, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue as well as the Financial Services Authority, both to prevent and to prosecute money laundering offences.

  Following conviction, the Serious Fraud Office seeks confiscation orders, in addition to the other sentences available to judges, wherever possible, to send a strong deterrent message to would-be offenders both in this country and abroad.

HEALTH

  Tissue Banks
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if tissue banks will be permitted to include foetal tissues and immature gametes. [146115]

  Yvette Cooper
  With the explicit consent of the donor to its subsequent use, it is permissible to take and store any human tissue.

  Banks storing foetal tissues and immature gametes intended for therapeutic use are included in the scope of the Code of Practice for Banks Providing Tissues of Human Origin for Therapeutic Purposes which has been developed by the Department of Health in consultation with the Royal Colleges and relevant professional bodies.

  National Health Service hospitals and independent sector places, approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for the termination of pregnancy, may supply foetal tissue for research purposes. Premises supplying foetal tissue for research purposes are expected to comply with the "Polkinghorne Code of Practice on the Use of Fetuses and Fetal Material in Research and Treatment".

  Smoking
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the investment in smoking cessation services set up following the White Paper, Smoking Kills. [153440]

  Yvette Cooper
  £10 million was invested in 1999–2000 in the 26 Health Action Zones to develop National Health Service smoking cessation services. During the first year 5,800 clients had successfully quit at
  267W
  four-week follow up. This represented 39 per cent. of clients setting a quit date, as against our target based on research evidence of an achievable average rate of 26 per cent.

  In 2000–01 all health authorities in England were funded to provide smoking cessation services. In the first two quarters of the year there were 12,900 clients who had successfully quit at four-week follow-up. This represented 40 per cent. of those setting a quit date.

  We are also making smoking cessation aids available on the NHS to help smokers to quit. The new smoking cessation aid, Zyban, has been available on NHS prescription since June 2000, and we have recently announced that nicotine replacement therapy will also be available on NHS prescription in April 2001. Both these aids to smoking cessation are proven to be effective and cost effective in helping smokers to quit.

  We have commissioned research into the effectiveness of the NHS smoking cessation services to inform future developments in this area.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) consultants were employed by the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (i) on 1 May 1997 and (ii) for the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [154654]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data are not collected centrally in the format requested. The table shows the latest available data, which indicate an increase in staffing at the trust in each of the groups identified.

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Hospital medical staff and nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff working for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust, as at 30 September each year.

  Headcount

  1997

  2000

  All hospital medical staff

  190

  220

  Of which:

  Consultants

  70

  90

  HCHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  900

  920

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the additional £10,000 allocated to general practitioner surgeries in England will be incorporated into general practitioners' contracts and terms of service. [155629]

  Mr. Denham
  The additional resources are to be used by primary care groups and primary care trusts to develop primary care in ways that improve services to patients. On average £10,000 per practice is available. The additional resources are to be used by PCG/Ts to develop primary care in ways that improve services to patients. On average £10,000 per practice is available. The money will be in addition to existing funding to practices.

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase recruitment and improve retention of speech and language therapists. [155420]

  Mr. Denham
  We are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention for all staff, including speech and language therapists. Examples include investing in fair pay, encouraging the National Health Service to become a better employer, increasing training commissions, attracting former staff back to the NHS, encouraging flexible retirement, and supporting more effective, collaborative international recruitment where appropriate. The Department is working with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists to implement these measures.

  The Secretary of State recently announced that allied health professionals deciding to return to the NHS, including speech and language therapists, will be eligible for free refresher training, a payment of £1,000 to support them while undertaking refresher training and assistance with childcare, travel and books.

  Oral Tobacco Products
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on controlling the import of oral tobacco products with particular reference to gutkha. [155883]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer sent 28 March 2001]: So long as oral tobacco from overseas sources does not fall within a banned category, complies with United Kingdom Customs duty regulations and carries health warnings, their import into the UK is not illegal.

  However, we wish to ensure that people have information about health risks. We are, therefore, seeking to develop greater awareness of the health risks associated with oral tobacco as part of our tobacco information strategy. We are working on a dedicated campaign, focused on high risk ethnic minority populations, to address the health risks of smoking and the use of oral tobacco in order to decrease demand for these products. We have funded a training pack for trading standards officers on oral tobacco.

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure the early appointment of a new chief executive at University Hospital Aintree, Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust. [156150]

  Mr. Denham
  Unfortunately, this post had to be re-advertised because of a lack of suitable candidates. I am pleased to report a good response to the re-advertisement, from which a short list of suitable candidates will be drawn. It is expected that interviews will be held before the end of April. In the meantime, the trust's Medical Director is fulfilling the responsibilities of the post in an acting capacity.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the letter dated 8 February from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West regarding the case of Josh Galloway, a constituent. [156098]
  269W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 4 April.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 3 January, 1 February, 1 March and 28 March relating to her constituent, Mrs. I. Wildish of Cheshunt, Hertfordshire. [156697]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letters was sent on 4 April 2001.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has carry out research at regular intervals into the prevalence of child maltreatment. [156145]

  Mr. Hutton
  One of our stated objectives for children's social services (published in 1999) is to ensure that children are protected from emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect (significant harm). Within this objective, we have made clear our determination to reduce the incidence of both child abuse (significant harm) and repeated child abuse (significant harm).

  The Department's policy research programme is mounting a new research and development initiative to contribute to the evaluation of the "Quality Protects" programme. The initiative will examine how the objectives of the programme are being translated into practice. The research and dissemination budget for the initiative will be £2 million over a period of four years.

  In March this year, we invited tenders for this research initiative. There are four main areas of focus identified in the briefing paper for tenders, including "Children's protection from significant harm". The briefing paper invites proposals for a pilot study on the incidence of significant harm and repeated significant harm.

  Health Services (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for general practitioners there were in the Hazel Grove constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [156179]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of vacancies for general practitioners for the Stockport health authority area in 1992, 1997 and 2001 is not available. However the number of general practitioners (GP) in Stockport health authority during this period is as follows:

  All practitioners

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1

  1992

  173

  150

  1997

  175

  155

  2000

  192

  166

  270W
  Notes:

  1. General medical practitioners (excluding GP retainers) includes UPEs, restricted principals, salaried doctors (paragraph 52 of Statement of Fees and Allowances) and personal medical service (PMS), others; and UPEs includes general medical services, unrestricted principals. PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  2. GP retainers were collected for the first time in the 1999 census. For comparability they have been excluded from the 2000 figure.

  3. There were six GP retainers in Stockport health authority as at 30 September 2000.

  Source:

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS registered dentists there were in the Hazel Grove constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [156180]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of dentists is available by health authority rather than by constituency.

  Hazel Grove constituency was located in Stockport Family Health Service, Authority (FHSA) at September 1992. From April 1996 Stockport FHSA changed to Stockport health authority (HA).

  The number of dentists in the general dental service at 30 September is shown in the table for Stockport FHSA for 1992 and HA for 1997 and 2000.

  General Dental Service: Number of dentists by HA at 30 September each year

  Number of dentists1

  1992

  Stockport FHSA

  107

  1997

  Stockport HA

  113

  2000

  Stockport HA

  114

  1 The number of dentists includes principals on a HA list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners

  Doctors and Nurses (Stockport)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for NHS doctors and nurses there were in the Stockport health authority area in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [156181]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has no information available for 1992 and 1997. The March 2001 vacancy survey is currently being collected and the results should be published in July 2001.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current level of teenage pregnancy in the UK. [156169]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office for National Statistics published details of conception rates for 1999, including those among teenagers, on 22 March. To coincide with publication of the data, a statement was issued by this Department (press release 2001–0143).

  The statistics show that in England, conception rates among the under 16s fell by seven per cent., and by four per cent. among the under 18s. This is encouraging news.

  271W
  However, our rates remain high and we cannot afford to be complacent. That is why we are stepping up our programme to tackle teenage pregnancy.

  Action planned for the next six months includes: an assessment of advice and contraception services; providing sex and relationship education in all young offender institutions; issuing new guidance on involving young people in devising teenage pregnancy strategies and for youth workers and social workers on their role in preventing teenage pregnancy; and providing information to all areas about local projects which are already making an impact.

  Information about levels of teenage pregnancy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is available from the devolved administrations.

  Health Professionals (Contracts)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's negotiations with the British Medical Association for new contracts for health professionals. [156452]

  Mr. Denham
  Our proposals for a new approach to the consultant contract and a consultation document on a new award scheme were published on 21 February.

  We are committed to seeking a negotiated outcome.

  Osteopaths Act
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 451W, on the General Osteopathic Council, if he will report back to those hon. Members who have raised concerns about the implementation of the Osteopaths Act 1993. [156270]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer sent 30 March 2001]: It is my intention to report back to all those hon. Members who spoke in the Adjournment Debate, and to those who have written to me to raise concerns about the implementation of the Osteopaths Act.

  GP's (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were in Shropshire(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156563]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to increasing the number of staff working within the National Health Service and funds have been made available to employ 2,000 more general practitioners (GPs) by 2004. The table illustrates the number of general medical practitioners (GMP) in Shropshire health authority area.

  Number of GMPs (excluding GP retainers)1 in Shropshire health authority on 1 October 1997 and 30 September 2000

  1997

  2000

  All practitioners

  260

  262

  Of which:

  Unrestricted principles and equivalents (UPEs)2

  239

  243

  1 GMP (excluding GP retainers) includes UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (paragraph 52 "Statement of Fees and Allowances") and personal medical services others.

  272W

  2 UPEs includes GMS Unrestricted Principles, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Note:

  GP Retainers were collected for the first time in the 1999 census, for comparability they have been excluded from the 2000 figure—there were 14 GP retainers in Shropshire health authority at 30 September 2000.

  Source:

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics

  Flu Vaccinations
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of those aged over 65 years received flu vaccinations in Shrewsbury and Atcham this winter; and if he will make a statement. [156497]

  Yvette Cooper
  Final monitoring figures received from the flu co-ordinator for Shropshire Health Authority at the end of December 2000, reported that 67 per cent. of those aged 65 and over received a flu immunisation. This is 7 percentage points higher than the national target of 60 per cent. coverage set at the start of the campaign.

  Cervical Screening
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the length of time between the decision by NICE on the approval of the Thin Prep Pap Test and its planned implementation. [156551]

  Yvette Cooper
  The pilot study to assess the feasibility of using liquid based cytology (LBC) in the National Health Service cervical screening programme is being progressed in line with the overall guidance published by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) in June 2000. LBC is being piloted in conjunction with human papilloma virus (HPV) testing.

  Since NICE's recommendation, the three sites for the pilot study have been selected, pilot staff have been trained in the new procedures, and new equipment has been installed on site. Screening began in March 2001, as originally planned.

  Cancer
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the time patients have to wait to receive cancer scans and biopsies. [156768]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are making significant investment in equipment of £93 million from the New Opportunities Fund which is being used to buy over 300 pieces of equipment for the breast screening programme, along with 34 MRI scanners and 30 linear accelerators. A further £100 million from the Modernisation Fund is being used to update and replace 66 CT scanners and planning equipment for cancer treatment.

  We have launched a new initiative to increase the number of histopathologists in training by investing £1.3 million to fund three pilot training centres. We are also investing £2.5 million a year in a training programme for general practitioners, nurses, surgeons and gastroenterologists to undertake endoscopy. Investment in work force means that by 2006 there will be nearly 1,000

  273W
  extra cancer specialists. Over the summer cancer networks will be developing three year service delivery plans to include work force, education and facilities strategies.

  The cancer services collaborative has demonstrated that by changing the way cancer services are provided, for example by pre-planning and pre-booking care, waiting times can be cut and a major impact can be made on cancer care. From 1 April 2001 the improvements in cancer care developed by the collaborative are being rolled out to every cancer network in the country, supported by up to £15 million central funding.

  Primary Care Incentive Schemes
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) present and (b) proposed incentive schemes in primary care together with their purposes. [156732]

  Mr. Denham
  There are a number of incentive schemes currently in place to encourage best practice in primary care including the prescribing incentives scheme and the sustained quality allowance scheme (details in Health Service Circular 1998/228 and HSC1999/107 respectively). Copies are available in the Library.

  On 19 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an additional £100 million of investment available to primary care groups and primary care trusts to draw up incentive schemes in association with their constituent practices. These schemes should focus upon delivering local services.

  This new investment is intended to stimulate innovation. £50 million will be available recurrently to enable practices to invest up front in service improvement. The second tranche of the moneys (£50 million) will be available non recurrently to reward achievement of the targets agreed locally by practices with their PCG or PCT. It will be for the practice to determine how to use these moneys which may be personal reward to individuals or additional investment to further support service development and staff training. This investment equates to a figure of approximately £2 per head of population with an average practice receiving £10,000 additional investments.

  Medical Records
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that patients will have an input into decisions over access to their medical records when electronic patient records are introduced. [156731]

  Ms Stuart
  A number of electronic record demonstrator projects are looking at this aspect of electronic patient record development. Any mechanisms put in place will need to reflect the requirements of Data Protection legislation and generally common law obligations of confidentiality.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the benefits arising from the introduction of primary care trusts. [156733]
  274W
  Mr. Denham
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are local, relevant and accessible organisations to both the community they serve and the clinicians who provide the care. PCTs have a range of freedoms and flexibilities greater than any other health service body. They provide improved support to practices and clinicians, commission and deliver improved services through the integration of primary and community health care and shape services in response to the needs of their local populations. They bring decisions about services closer to patients and local communities, ensuring that they are taken by those who understand their patients' needs. PCTs are demonstrating an ability to balance local knowledge against capacity to manage the provision services and the management resources to deliver Owing to the flexibility PCTs have to form responsive local services, there exists a large variety of initiatives across the country.

  One hundred and twenty-four new PCTs became operational on 1 April 2001 bringing the total number of PCTs to 164. In two years, the percentage of the population in England whose healthcare is being delivered by a PCT has risen from zero to approximately 48 per cent. The benefits of PCT status for services to patients, the public and for healthcare are being realised now that the first 17 PCTs have completed their first year of operation.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will pay compensation to patients with haemophilia and other blood disorders who have contracted hepatitis C through infected blood transfusions; and if he will make a statement. [156858]

  Mr. Denham
  We have reviewed the previous Government's decision not to offer financial assistance to haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis C through blood products. We concluded that an exception could not be made to the general rule that compensation or financial help is only given when the National Health Service, or individuals working in it, have been at fault.

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he received in respect of suspending the concentration of services within the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust; and if he will publish that advice; [157093]

  (2) what consideration he gave in reaching his decision to suspend the concentration of services within the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (a) to patient safety, (b) staff morale and (c) cost; and if he will make a statement. [157094]

  Ms Stuart
  I have carefully considered all the representations made to me over the past few months about the future of acute services at the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare National Health Service Trust and have decided that it would be in the best interest of the local population that any further changes are suspended until the conclusions of the South East Surrey and North West Sussex Service review are known.

  In the interim, the South East Regional Office of the NHS Executive will work closely with the trust to ensure that services continue to be provided safely.

  Foster Carers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account has been taken of representations from fostering organisations about the impact on the recruitment and retention of foster carers of the Inland Revenue's proposals for taxing payments. [157069]

  Mr. Hutton
  Meetings have taken place between officials of the Inland Revenue, the Department of Health, representatives from the Association of Directors of Social Services, the National Foster Care Association, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the Forum of Independent Fostering Agencies, plus other interested parties, such as accountants with relevant expertise in this area. The intention is to agree an appropriate and fair level of average allowable expenses to set against any income that a foster carer may receive from either a local authority or a fostering agency.

  It has now been agreed that existing local arrangements will continue to apply until such time as a mutually acceptable agreement on average allowable expenses can be agreed. We hope this will be well in advance of 6 April 2002. We are committed to involving fostering organisations in this process.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish a report on a long-term strategy to deal with alcohol abuse. [156910]

  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.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Closures
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the occasions on which schools have(a) closed and (b) sent children home early due to (i) foot and mouth disease, (ii) teacher sickness, (iii) adverse weather conditions and (iv) teacher shortages, in the last year for which figures are available. [156918]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally. Schools may decide to close or to send pupils home early for a number of reasons, especially where they judge the health and safety of pupils to be at risk. Neither schools nor local education authorities are required to report such decisions.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the percentage of children(a) of compulsory school age and (b) 16 and over who attended independent schools in each of the last 10 years. [157058]
  276W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The data requested are shown in the table.

  Pupils in independent schools1

  Percentage of pupil of compulsory school age2

  Percentage of pupils aged 16+3

  2000

  6.0

  19.0

  1999

  6.0

  19.5

  1998

  6.0

  20.0

  1997

  6.0

  20.5

  1996

  6.0

  21.1

  1995

  6.1

  21.5

  1994

  6.2

  21.2

  1993

  6.5

  16.7

  1992

  6.7

  17.5

  1991

  6.8

  18.7

  1 Excluding City Technology Colleges

  2 Calculated as a percentage of pupils of compulsory school age in all school types

  3 Calculated as a percentage of pupils aged 16 and over in all school types

  Student Loans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) of 9 February 2001,Official Report, column 764W on student loans, if he will estimate the rate of interest required to increase the net present value of student loans in 1999–2000 by £455 million. [156662]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The net present value of the estimated £982 million income contingent loans issued in 1999–2000 to students domiciled in England and Wales is estimated to be £590 million. The nominal rate of interest required to increase this by £455 million is estimated to be around 10 per cent.

  Shakespeare
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 3W, on Shakespeare, what plans he has for the examining at GCSE of the required study of Shakespeare and the other literary figures referred to in his answer. [156147]

  Mr. Wicks
  Currently there are two GCSE examinations: GCSE English—which covers the full National Curriculum programme of study in English, including the literature requirements—and GCSE English Literature which ranges more widely. The proposal to review the GCSE in English arose from a review of examination standards over time commissioned and published by the previous administration. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has been consulting widely on how to take forward recommendations from the SCAA/Ofsted report "Standards in Public Examinations 1975 to 1995"
  277W
  published in December 1996. We have insisted that the proportion of Shakespeare and other major figures from British literature covered in any proposals for a new English examination should not be diminished.

  OECD
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions he has had with officials of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on standards in education in the UK. [156860]

  Mr. Wicks
  My noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment attended the meeting of OECD Education Ministers on 3 and 4 of April to review the OECD's work over the last five years and agree its forward work programme for the next five years. My Department will continue to co-operate closely with OECD in securing lifelong learning for all to meet the new skill demands of the knowledge economy; and in developing innovative teaching and learning to address the challenges for tomorrow's school systems.

  Veterinary Students
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of students on veterinary courses are from(a) state schools and (b) state schools in the north of England; and what the breakdown is in each of the veterinary colleges. [155349]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions service (UCAS) is shown in the table. UCAS do not release data for individual institutions at subject level.

  Home domiciled accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in veterinary science by previous educational establishment

  Institutions in the UK

  Autumn 2000 entry

  Previous educational establishment

  Accepted applicants

  Maintained schools1:

  in the north of England2

  52

  from other regions of the UK

  220

  Total maintained schools

  272

  Independent schools

  157

  FE/HE establishments

  63

  Other

  2

  Not Known

  101

  Total

  595

  1Includes comprehensive, grammar, sixth form centres, other secondary and former grant-maintained schools

  2Includes the following government regions: North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, North West and Merseyside

  Sixth Form Funding (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year since 1992 the average funding per student, for each sixth form college in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [156490]
  278W
  Mr. Wicks
  Shrewsbury and Atcham has one sixth form college: Shrewsbury Sixth Form College. The average funding per student is available for the following years as follows:

  £

  Academic year

  Funding per student

  1994–95

  2,789

  1995–96

  1,872

  1996–97

  1,882

  1997–98

  2,245

  1998–99

  2,258

  1999–2000

  2,410

  Student Support Arrangements
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of parents are(a) expected to and (b) discharge their obligations to fund their children who are students under the student support arrangements. [155874]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: In England and Wales students on undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards their tuition fees and living costs (maintenance) only if they can afford to do so.

  In academic year 1998–99, the latest year for which data are available, the proportion of higher education students whose parents were assessed to pay towards their support under the Education (Student Support) Regulations and who were assessed to contribute towards their fees was 65 per cent. Of these, an estimated 41 per cent. were assessed to pay the full support (£1,000 in 1998–99) and 24 per cent. were assessed to pay a partial contribution towards fees.

  Data on parental contributions to tuition fees and to students' maintenance are available from the Student Income and Expenditure Survey in 1998–99. Based on a nationally representative sample of just over 2000 full-time students the survey estimates that the parents of 42 per cent. of students were assessed to make a contribution towards maintenance. Of these students 50 per cent. received more than the assessed amount, 20 per cent. received the exact amount, while the remaining 30 per cent. received less than the assessed amount.

  The new student support arrangements introduced in 1999–2000 more than doubled the maximum amount of student loan from £1,685 to £3,635, in order to ensure that parents pay no more in upfront contributions than under the previous system. The value of the loan under the new arrangements increased, in cash terms, by 62 per cent. between 1997–98 and 1998–99 (the transitional year) and by 116 per cent. between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 when support for living costs was solely through loans (except for students in vulnerable groups who are also eligible for supplementary grants).

  In 1998–99 only first year students were liable to pay tuition fees. In the Student Income and Expenditure Survey 42 per cent. of first year students said that their parents had been assessed to make a contribution towards fees, and of these four in five said that they had received the full amount. The one in five students who reported

  279W
  receiving less than the full parental contribution to fees is based on a small sample of students (237). This small number, although the result of a nationally representative sample, is subject to sampling error.

  Universities UK (formerly the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals) conducts periodic surveys of fee payment to higher education institutions. The latest, in November 2000, estimated that 97 per cent. of students' fee contributions for the previous academic year would be paid by the end of October 2000.

  School Internet Connections (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham were connected to the internet(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156491]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department does not hold this information on a constituency basis. However, since 1996 the percentage of primary and secondary schools in England with internet connections has increased from 5 per cent. to 86 per cent., and from 47 per cent. to 98 per cent., respectively. I am confident therefore that we are on track to meet our target of connecting all schools to the internet by 2002 and, in doing so, to enable all pupils to benefit from access to resources that will enrich their learning and help to improve standards.

  New Deal
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the local New Deal Strategy Group in determining whether direct displacement of existing employees has taken place in firms participating in the New Deal; [155062]

  (2) what sanctions exist against a company which has contravened the rules of the New Deal relating to the direct displacement of existing employees. [155053]

  Ms Jowell
  When an employer signs up to New Deal they sign an employer agreement which states they have not made anyone redundant or displaced to create the vacancy. The agreement is usually signed on behalf of the Employment Service by the local Business Manager who initiates action if an employer is found to have contravened the agreement. If this proves to be the case, the Employment service would refuse to service any further vacancies for that employer.

  The New Deal Strategic Partnership would not normally be involved in issues to do with the displacement of existing employees by New Deal participants. Their role includes producing local strategic plans, monitoring delivery and harnessing local support for New Deal.

  Jobcentres (Scotland)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Jobcentre offices and premises there are in each constituency in Scotland. [156570]
  280W
  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given, which has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [156782]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the High Peak constituency and Derbyshire LEA have been placed in the Library.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Government Bills
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 314W, on Government bills, what measures she has put in place to monitor the effectiveness of her policy to reduce the number of Government amendments tabled to Government Bills; and if she will make a statement. [156156]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Last Session, the number of pages in Bills grew by 28.8 per cent. between introduction and enactment. This Session, the increase is running at 3.8 per cent. However, there will always be occasions when the Government will need or wish to respond to relevant developments and table amendments as a result.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the role of livestock markets on the spread of foot and mouth disease. [155685]

  Mr. Morley
  The movement of sheep has been a key factor in the spread of foot and mouth disease. We estimate that some 700,000 sheep were sold through livestock markets in Great Britain in February before movement restrictions were imposed. The total movement of sheep in this period will be very much higher. I have launched a consultation on the issue of a standstill period following movements of sheep, goats and cattle, and will also be looking at questions such as traceability, the operation of markets and, in particular, out of ring sales.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the foot and mouth crisis. [155688]

  Mr. Morley
  Foot and mouth disease is having a devastating effect of farmers and others involved in the livestock industry, on the tourism industry and on rural communities in general. Experts agree that the nature and impact of the outbreak is unprecedented. Our top priority
  281W
  remains to contain and eradicate the disease as quickly as possible. Separately we are providing assistance to those worst affected.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of farmers' incomes prior to the foot and mouth outbreak; and what assessment he has made of the effect of foot and mouth on this year's farmers' incomes. [155693]

  Ms Quin
  Farm incomes have been seriously depressed. Average income from farming in 2000 was £8,500. This represents a drop of 25 per cent. in real terms as compared to 1999.

  At this stage it is not possible to quantify the impact the foot and mouth outbreak may have on the incomes of the industry as a whole though it clearly has had a very serious impact on those farmers directly affected. That is why the government have already responded by introducing a number of targeted measures to assist the livestock industry. Overall, we expect the agrimonetary compensation and the welfare disposal scheme to provide over £400 million to livestock farmers.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [155704]

  Ms Quin
  This is an appalling disease which is having a devastating effect on farmers, rural communities and all those involved in the livestock industry. Our top priority remains to contain and eradicate it as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has held with farmers representatives in the last month to discuss the foot and mouth outbreak. [155705]

  Ms Quin
  We have regularly met a wide range of farming and other organisations since the beginning of the outbreak. In addition, we hold weekly meetings on foot and mouth with stakeholders.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to preserve rare breeds during the foot and mouth outbreak. [155706]

  Ms Quin
  Animals are slaughtered if they are found to be affected by foot and mouth disease. However, following the Chief Veterinary Officer's recent visit to Cumbria, we are reviewing the implications for rare breeds, particularly where these are located in the 3km zone surrounding infected premises.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Forestry Commission to discuss precautions against foot and mouth disease. [155707]

  Mr. Morley
  I have talked to the Forestry Commission about its response to the foot and mouth outbreak on several occasions over the last few weeks. The most recent occasion was yesterday.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the regulations which govern on-farm burial of animal carcases. [156202]
  282W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: In England, the regulations which govern the on-farm burial of animal carcases are the Animal By-Products Order 1999, the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Groundwater Regulations 1998.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has carried out an assessment of the risk due to BSE infectivity from disposal of cattle during the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [157585]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  On 30 March, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) considered the independent assessment from DNV Consulting of the public health risk due to BSE infectivity from burning cattle during the present foot and mouth disease outbreak. This assessment was placed in the Libraries of the House on 15 March. Taking account of comments from SEAC and the Environment Agency, this assessment has been revised to include the possible BSE risks from burying cattle carcases on farm and in landfill. Copies of this 1 April revision of the DNV risk assessment have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and are today being published on the MAFF Foot and Mouth Disease internet site.

  SEAC advised that the risk from burning (or burying) cattle born on or after August 1996 would be at least 400 times lower than the risk from burning (or burying) a similar number of cattle born before this date. In the light of SEAC's advice, the Environment Agency is advising that, depending on local hydrogeological and other factors and subject to site specific risk assessments, cattle born on or after 1 August 1996 may be buried.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure prompt payments for claims under the agrimonetary compensation scheme. [155686]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Payments of the £156 million optional agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers will begin later this week following accelerated approval by the European Commission. Sheep farmers are already receiving the payments due to them in compulsory agrimonetary compensation, and payment of their optional amounts will be under way during April. Dairy producers can expect to receive the bulk of their agrimonetary payments during April and May, with residual balance payments being made to them later in the year. Payments to beef producers will begin in May.

  Livestock Farmers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he had made of the impact of Government policy on Britain's livestock farmers. [155687]

  Mr. Morley
  Livestock farmers will receive some £735 million in 2000–01 by way of payments under the principal EU livestock schemes—for suckler cows, beef cattle and sheep. In the present difficult circumstances, we have taken steps to ensure that farmers who have lost animals as a result of foot and mouth disease preserve their entitlement to premiums. In addition, the Government are paying compensation at full market value
  283W
  for animals slaughtered because of FMD, and have made available compensation under the optional Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme for those farmers who face immediate welfare difficulties, £156 million of optional agrimonetary compensation is about to be paid to livestock farmers.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on agricultural food imports into the United Kingdom. [155689]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to today's earlier oral answer given to the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Poole (Mr. Syms), at columns 489–90.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he discussed regional management of the fisheries when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the review of the common fisheries policy. [155690]

  Mr. Morley
  I regularly raise the need to develop regional management of fisheries when I meet my European counterparts. I look forward to the opportunity of pursuing this in the Fisheries Councils on 25 April and 18 June when the Commission's suggestions on the issue contained in its Green Paper on the future of the CFP will be discussed.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the reform of the common agricultural policy in relation to farmers' incomes; and if he will make a statement. [155691]

  Ms Quin
  Farm incomes have been seriously depressed latterly, principally as a result of the weakness of the Euro against sterling, low world commodity prices, the impact of BSE and now the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There are also longstanding structural weaknesses in the agricultural sector arising from the tradition of production-based subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. That is why the Government are firmly committed to securing further reform.

  Insurable Diseases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to widen the take-up of private insurance for insurable diseases, including foot and mouth. [155692]

  Ms Quin
  At the outset of last year's outbreak of classical swine fever, we established a joint Government/industry working party to consider what measures the livestock industry could take to protect itself in future against the commercial consequences of animal disease outbreaks. The working party is looking at the existing and potential role of animal disease insurance.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the change in the number of veterinarians employed by the state veterinary service was(a) from 1979–80 to 1997–98 and (b) from 1997–98 to date. [155694]

  Ms Quin
  The State Veterinary Service employed 597 full-time equivalents in 1979. In 1997 there were 289 full-time equivalents in the Service. At present there are 286 full-time equivalent veterinarians in the Service. There are currently over 1,200 veterinarians working to control foot and mouth disease.

  Dairy Regime
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reform the dairy regime of the common agricultural policy. [155695]

  Ms Quin
  We will continue to seek an orderly end to the milk quota system which unfairly constrains our producers.

  Mackerel (Conservation)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has recently had with respect to conservation of mackerel. [155696]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware of concerns in the south-west about the conservation of mackerel including some requests for a reopening of the Mackerel Box. The scientific advice is clear that the Box should remain. I am however seeking ICES advice on the issue.

  Scientific Advice
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that scientific advice to Ministers is made public. [155697]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 15 February that all scientific appraisals prepared to inform policy decisions in MAFF will be put into the public domain. We have also taken a number of steps to increase the openness of the Scientific Advisory Committees advising MAFF, including holding open sessions, publishing agendas and minutes of meetings and issuing public reports.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with beef farmers representatives in the last month. [155698]

  Ms Quin
  Beef farmers are represented at the weekly meetings on FMD we are holding with stakeholders.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he forecasts in the subsidy regime affecting hill farmers from 2001 to 2005. [155700]
  285W
  Ms Quin
  The hill farm allowance scheme has been approved by the Commission as a basis for hill farm support in England up to 2006. However, we will keep the scheme under review, and will propose modifications taking account of the report of the Hills Task Force, commissioned research into alternative approaches to land classification, and other developments including the foot and mouth disease outbreaks.

  Flood Defences
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on flood defences. [155701]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England. Operational responsibility falls to the "operating authorities", the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities.

  The Government's policy aim is to reduce the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. Our three objectives for delivering this aim are:

  to encourage the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems;

  to encourage the provision of adequate, technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable flood and coastal defence measures; and

  to discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding or coastal erosion.

  Delivery of the aim and objectives is facilitated by inter alia a series of high level targets for the flood and coastal defence operating authorities which took effect in April 2000.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on plans to prevent flooding in and around the Thames and Medway estuaries. [155703]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for deciding which flood defence works to promote and their timing rests with operating authorities such as the Environment Agency. I understand that the agency has embarked on a programme of studies with a view to formulating a strategy for flood risk management in the whole Thames estuary, with more specific studies planned for elements such as the Medway estuary.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve flood defences in Leeds city centre. [156806]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry has policy responsibility for flood defence in England and administers grant aid for capital defence works. However it is for local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency or the local council, to determine which projects to promote and their timing. I understand that the agency has commissioned a number of strategic studies for the River Aire with a view to considering options for flood alleviation measures in Leeds and other towns on the river.

  Herds and Flocks (Health Status)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has conducted into the health status of herds and flocks in(a) Britain and (b) other countries. [155702]

  Ms Quin
  The health status of flocks and herds in Great Britain is the subject of ongoing surveillance for notifiable and non-notifiable diseases. For flocks and herds abroad, we rely on advice from the Office of International Epizootics and on information collected by the European Commission. The 1999 Annual Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer gives an overview of the work undertaken.

  Rural Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the proportion of Common Agricultural Policy expenditure devoted to rural development. [155699]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are committed to further expansion of rural development measures: the "second pillar" of the CAP. In England some £1.6 billion is being injected into rural areas over seven years. In practice, this means increasing spending from 1999 levels by about 60 per cent. over the period. £300 million of this will be money redirected, or "modulated", from direct support mechanisms. The Government are supplementing this modulated money with a further £300 million. At Community level, we will continue to press for a greater share of EU funding from the second pillar.

  Hill Farm Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the administrative costs of the Hill Farm Allowance scheme as a percentage of grants disbursed. [156864]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: The budget for HFA payments has been determined in the context of the England Rural Development Programme, the Action Plan for Farming and the Spending Review and is entirely separate from the Ministry's running costs. However, this year the costs of administering HFA payments in England, ignoring design and setting up costs, are expected to be about 1.5 per cent. of the payments made.

  Pigswill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the proposed ban on pigswill comes into effect; and how the pigswill will then be disposed of. [156279]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The consultation period on the proposed ban on the use of pigswill ends on 10 April. Our intention is for an order to be made as soon as possible thereafter and for the ban to come into force 3 to 4 weeks later. The disposal of the material formerly used to produce pigswill will then be subject to the requirements of the duty of care under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and must be disposed of only by an "authorised person" (eg the operator of a licensed landfill site or an authorised incinerator).

  Forestry
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to provide financial assistance to the forestry industry to compensate for losses incurred as the result of foot and mouth disease restrictions; and if he will make a statement; [155784]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the job losses in the forestry industry which will result from the foot and mouth disease outbreak; and if he will make a statement; [155783]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the current foot and mouth restrictions on the forestry industry; what discussions he has had with the forestry industry; and if he will make a statement. [155782]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission is gathering information on the impact on the forestry industry of foot and mouth restrictions. The Commission has had discussions with key sectors of the industry including a meeting, on 23 March, with representatives of England's woodland owners and managers.

  Once the Forestry Commission has collected and analysed information regarding the impact of foot and mouth restrictions, we shall assess whether we should provide additional support for the forestry industry. I have discussed the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak with the Forestry Commission on several occasions, and the Rural Task Force, of which I am a member, has also received representations direct from the forestry industry.

  Agricultural Hereditaments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rise in the value of agricultural hereditaments since 1980. [147492]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: This information is not available. Agricultural hereditaments are exempt from rating and consequently they have not been valued. We have attempted to estimate the value of agricultural hereditaments for rating purposes on several previous occasions. However these calculations rely on a number of assumptions and are constrained by the availability of information on the value of agricultural properties at the time the calculation was made. Further, the basis used to calculate business rates has changed since 1980. As a result our previous calculations do not provide a reliable basis for estimating the increase in the notional value of agricultural hereditaments over a period of time.

  Slaughter Costs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent studies his Department has made of the average cost of slaughtering a lamb in an abattoir in each of the EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [153267]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has undertaken no such studies. Slaughter costs reflect a number of factors, including size and efficiency of operations, and are therefore commercial matters.

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

Lord Shepherd
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, before Questions, I am afraid that it is my duty to tell your Lordships that we have just heard the very sad news that my noble friend Lord Shepherd has died. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in sending sincere condolences and warmest sympathy to his family. Of course, as would be appropriate, we would all wish to pay tribute to my noble friend in the usual way. However, as we have only just heard the news, the Leader of the Opposition and I and the usual channels have agreed that perhaps tributes would be more appropriate on Monday. I hope the House will understand that. In the meantime we send our warm wishes to my noble friend's family.

Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in establishing the values and objectives for which the Commonwealth stands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group was set up to deal with serious and persistent violations of fundamental Commonwealth principles. It is widely acknowledged to have advanced the values and objectives established in the Harare Declaration, in terms of promoting democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law. CMAG engagement has been particularly effective in encouraging the restoration of constitutional democracy in cases where the legitimate government have been overthrown.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the particular context of supporting democracy, was the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group satisfied with the response of the Fijian Government to the actions that they took? Is it also satisfied with the proposals for a timetable for a return to elections in Pakistan, starting with local and provincial elections? Furthermore, given the commitment of the Commonwealth to a peaceful resolution of conflict, what is the present
904
situation of the Commonwealth countries—in particular Zimbabwe and Uganda—currently involved in the Democratic Republic of the Congo conflict, with regard to their commitment to withdraw?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked four questions. I shall deal with them in turn. In relation to Fiji, CMAG reacted decisively to the attempted coup and hostage-taking in May 2000. As noble Lords know, it suspended Fiji from the councils of the Commonwealth. Despite initial resistance from Fiji's un-elected regime, CMAG was instrumental in ensuring the appointment of a Commonwealth special envoy. The work of the envoy represented by a respected South African judge has done much. Last week at a meeting with John Battle, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Fiji's caretaker Foreign Minister, Mr Tavola, welcomed the positive nature of CMAG's involvement in Fiji. So that was a positive outcome.
As noble Lords will know, Pakistan is currently suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth in accordance with the rules laid down in the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme. Pakistan's Foreign Minister spoke to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in September last year. Pakistan has since written twice to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, but we still have no firm date for national elections. Pakistan was discussed at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 19th and 20th. CMAG Ministers urged Pakistan to clarify its position before the October meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Brisbane. If it does not do so, it risks further measures being taken at Brisbane up to and including expulsion from the Commonwealth. That is quite a serious position.
The noble Baroness also asked about Zimbabwe's position in relation to the Congo and the withdrawal. I do not have a clear answer on that issue. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness about that matter.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given the latest illiberal set of dictatorial laws issued by President Mugabe, is it not now time that the values and objectives of the Commonwealth were asserted much more vigorously than they have been in the recent past? Since the Foreign Secretary has spoken about the importance of the Commonwealth, is it not time for Britain to take much more of an initiative in modernising and strengthening the Commonwealth's purposes? Finally, do the Government agree with the view of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth that it does not necessarily follow that the Prince of Wales would be Head of the Commonwealth when the time comes?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have done much to support the values and objectives asserted by the Harare principles. Indeed, we have been very vigorous indeed.

905
The noble Lord will know that it was a British initiative that led to setting up the high level group. It was the British voice which encouraged CMAG to take a more active part. Indeed, at the last CMAG meeting, it was decided that a mission comprising the Foreign Ministers of Barbados, Australia and Nigeria should be sent to Zimbabwe. That was a very clear signal indeed about the Commonwealth's concern. We await to hear what Mr Mugabwe said in response. But to describe the actions that we have been taking as anything less than vigorous is most misplaced. I am surprised that the noble Lord should so describe it.
The choice as to who should be Head of the Commonwealth is a matter for discussion and decision among the 54 Commonwealth countries. But the British Government would expect the Prince of Wales, on the demise of the Crown, to become Head of the Commonwealth if that were the consensus.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the Zimbabwe Foreign Minister's objection to CMAG's planned visit to Zimbabwe, the time has now come for CMAG's mandate to be reviewed to embrace ostensibly democratic countries that are using undemocratic means to stay in power? Here I refer specifically to Zimbabwe.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that we have for some time expressed concern about CMAG's mandate. It is currently being considered. CMAG drew up proposals for an expanded mandate, which was considered by the heads of government at their Durban CHOGM meeting. The heads have asked the high level group set up under the chairmanship of President Mbeki of South Africa to consider whether, and if so how, CMAG's mandate should be expanded. There has been a good deal of concern that CMAG's current mandate does not, for instance, include freedom of expression.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Question specifically refers to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. Can my noble friend say on how many occasions over the past year the group, as a group, has met?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the exact number of occasions, but he should know that CMAG has concerned itself over a period of time with all those countries that have caused concern. It did sterling work in relation to Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Pakistan and Fiji, and now it is rightfully turning its attention to Zimbabwe. I undertake to provide the noble Lord with a specific answer in relation to the number of occasions on which the group has met, but I can reassure him that the group is active.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Minister say that the high level group had agreed to recommend to the next CHOGM in Brisbane that the remit of CMAG
906
should be extended to states where freedom of expression is under serious threat? Would freedom of expression in that context include religious intolerance, with particular regard to the situation in Pakistan, where the growing menace of sectarian violence threatens the return to democracy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I did not say that it had determined, but I did say that it had been charged with considering whether and how the mandate should be expanded. Once it has finished that consideration, it will be in a position to present its recommendations to the next CHOGM, where the whole of the Commonwealth will be able to consider whether it is minded to adopt those principles. We hope that there will be some movement.

Tourism
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to increase government funding to the British tourism industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government announced on 20th March a package of measures to alleviate immediate financial hardship of small businesses through rate reliefs, rescheduling tax and national insurance contribution payments and identifying sources of credit and other support. The Government are also considering funding to the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority to lead programmes over the next few weeks to reinvigorate tourism in the English countryside and to boost the message abroad that Britain is open for business. An announcement can be expected tomorrow.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Can he say how the grants that have been made to the tourist industry over the past four years compare with the present position, having regard to all the measures he has just mentioned? The two important grants to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council have been welcomed. But in view of the problems that still exist because of foot and mouth disease, is continuing consideration being given to increasing the grants? In addition, will not the proportion of rate relief to be borne by local authorities, which is 15 per cent and 25 per cent, present difficulties to the local authorities? Is that being re-examined?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend asked about the funding of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council. The English Tourism Council will receive a grant of

907
£10 million in the coming financial year, £12 million next year and £12.5 million in the year after. That is the basic funding. I referred also to an announcement that is to be made tomorrow. On the question of local authority expenditure, it is proposed that local authorities will have 95 per cent of their costs of operating the rate relief refunded by central government.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what his noble friend Lord Dormand said is quite correct? For businesses that have a rateable value of more than £12,000 per annum, 25 per cent of the rate relief will have to be borne by the local authorities, which are already under pressure as a result of a reduction in their revenues as a consequence of the foot and mouth epidemic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both noble Lords are correct about the figures. If this appears to cause hardship, it is one of the many matters which the Rural Task Force is willing to consider again in its ongoing deliberations on what needs to be done. But I can say that the reduction of the business rate took place on 1st April and our helplines show that it is much appreciated.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the plaudits of both the travel and tourism industries for the halving this week under the Budget of the airport passenger departure tax, which in itself was an inhibition to encouraging tourists to come to the United Kingdom? Can the Government now go one step further and eliminate this Tory stealth tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am happy to accept the plaudits mentioned by my noble friend. However, I am not prepared to predict any further changes in government taxation policy.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, has the Government's task force, which met yesterday, considered the possibility of making available loans to businesses? While the moves already made by the Government are helpful, many small businesses in the sector are going broke. They need immediate loans to keep going, not merely tax breaks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the report of the work of the task force made to Parliament on 20th March made clear that we were in touch with banks and leading financial institutions, encouraging them to relax their rules on loans. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that this is enormously important.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, following on from the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is it not the case that the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease merely serves to compound in many areas of our tourist industry a problem which already
908
existed? Small businesses operating in seasonal areas are more and more feeling the pinch, in particular those in our seaside resorts. Aside from the funding and other measures that the noble Lord has outlined, does he agree that, over the medium and long-term, we are going to have to look at the whole strategy of funding tourism in this country and to think about where that funding should be aimed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I accept the case put by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; namely, that tourism was suffering before the foot and mouth outbreak. In fact, our tourism figures both for visitors from within this country and for those from overseas continued to he buoyant throughout the year 2000, despite the strong pound. Nevertheless, the matters referred to by the noble Viscount will continue to be considered.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that tourism was a wonderful and successful industry that did not look for handouts until the present tragedy struck? I say that as someone who once held some ministerial responsibility for tourism. In those days, tourism was our fourth largest invisible export. Can the noble Lord tell the House what position it holds now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, certainly I accept that the tourist industry has not been looking for handouts. What it has been seeking—as it did when the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, was a responsible Minister—is assistance with marketing. That is still the case. Indeed, a great deal still needs to be done to improve the marketing of our wonderful and very valuable tourist industry.
I am not sure whether anything has changed as regards tourism holding fourth place in terms of invisible exports, but I shall write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain the discrepancy in the level of resources provided for the promotion of tourism in Scotland and that available in some of the English regions? I am thinking in particular of the north-east of England. I understand that Scotland spends around 40 times more on the promotion of tourism than does that part of England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in this House we are not responsible for how much the Scottish Executive elects to spend on tourism. However, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will be pleased to know that, on 28th March, the Scottish Executive announced a package very similar to that which was announced in this House on 20th March. As regards the funding of the Northumbria Tourist Board, to which I believe the noble Lord referred, I am sure that he will recognise that that tourist board is an extremely lively, active and successful organisation.

Secondary School Class Sizes
3.24 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent figures from local education authorities revealing that in many areas secondary school class sizes are at their highest for 10 years.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, new figures for the average class size in secondary schools will be published tomorrow. In January 2000, the average size of a secondary class was 22. That is, on average, around five fewer pupils than in primary school classes. Increases in the average size of secondary school class sizes are not new. The average secondary class size rose by 1.4 between 1991 and 1997 and has risen by only 0.3 between 1997 and 2000. Some 193,000 secondary school teachers were employed in schools in England in January 2000, which was 3,800 more than in 1997.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she share the concerns expressed by many schools and reported in the press that the changes in A and AS-levels have resulted in more subjects being taken? That has led to larger sets for A-level teaching, in one case of some 20 pupils, which the noble Baroness will know is far too many? Furthermore, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a shortage of teachers in many specialist subjects, in particular the scarce subjects such as physics and mathematics? Will the noble Baroness be able to issue advice to schools as to how to cope with this problem?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that the changes which have been made to the sixth form curriculum have been widely welcomed by schools, teachers, employers, parents and, indeed, by students themselves. I should point out that, prior to those changes, many sixth-form classes were extremely small. They were far smaller than classes lower down in the school, reflecting the fact that not all pupils stay on at school to take A and AS-levels, as well as GNVQs. For that reason, I do not believe that there is any evidence of a serious deterioration in sixth form class sizes. Some classes may be a little larger, but I do not believe that that slight increase would in any way affect the quality of teaching offered in sixth forms.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in his last annual report, the Chief Inspector of Schools reported that the percentage of schools in which the teaching of science, maths and modern languages was unsatisfactory had doubled at key stage 3 when compared to the figures for the previous year? The figures for key stage 4 were almost as bad. Does the Minister think that large class sizes, along with the shortage of specialist teachers, might have something to do with those findings?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it is extremely important to tackle the shortage of specialist
910
teachers. That is exactly what the Government are doing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows, the Government have introduced a training salary for potential teachers undertaking their PGCE courses, as well as offering golden hellos for those teachers who will work in disciplines where there are shortages. As a result, we have already seen a substantial increase in the numbers of young people applying to train for teaching. The application rate for PGCE courses has risen by 24 per cent, with particularly large increases in applications for those specialist subjects mentioned by the noble Baroness. Most science teaching is now being undertaken in our secondary schools by teachers who are qualified in science; that is as it should be.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if we are to have a mature debate on the development of secondary education, we shall have to navigate our way past the simplistic notion that class size is the fundamental criterion here? Any number of other factors need to be taken into consideration. Over the past three years I have spoken to literally hundreds of teachers. The overwhelming response from them has been that, given a straight choice between taking larger classes with the support of classroom assistants or being left on their own to teach smaller classes, they would always prefer the support component. What progress have the Government made as regards recruitment levels for teaching support?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend when he stated that many factors determine the performance of pupils in our schools. Class size is only one of those factors. It is wrong to become too hung up as regards whether there are only 21 children in a secondary school class or whether there are 22. I think that it was right for the Government to place particular emphasis on reducing class sizes in infant schools because all the research demonstrated that very young children do benefit from being taught in smaller classes.
To return to my noble friend's points about secondary schools, over the past couple of years we have increased the number of teaching assistants working in secondary schools by some 3,000. I think that the adult/pupil ratio is as important as the teacher/ pupil ratio. Many teachers have said that they want us to provide such extra support in the classroom in order to free them to attend to their specialist tasks.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the pupil/teacher ratio is not necessarily a guide to how many children there are in a class? While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that there is a more mature debate to be had, it was the Government who chose smaller classes as their target when they came to office. Does the noble Baroness further agree that the department's own figures as of April last year, after three years in office, show that the number of children in classes of 31 and more had increased and that the number of children in classes of 36 or more had increased by 50 per cent? After listening to

911
governors and teachers, there is no reason to believe that the situation has improved after four years in office.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Baroness's reference to pupil/teacher ratios was about. Of course pupil/teacher ratios are different to class sizes. The pupil/teacher ratio in secondary schools is approximately 17.2 pupils to every one teacher. As I have said, it was right for the Government to focus on class sizes so far as concerns infant school children because the previous government, of which the noble Baroness was a member, left literally hundreds of thousands of infant school children in classes of more than 30. The Government have now virtually achieved their pledge; some 98 per cent of infant school children are in classes of less than 30. There are also fewer pupils among the older age group in classes of more than 30 in primary schools and, indeed, in secondary schools. I simply do not recognise the noble Baroness's figures.

Royal Ulster Constabulary
3.32 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the replacement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers of superintendent rank and above who are leaving the force within the next 18 months.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, replacement of officers of superintendent and assistant chief constable rank are matters for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland respectively. All sides welcome the Government's generous severance terms for the RUC. The offer has been taken up by 54 officers of superintendent rank or above during the period January to March 2001. A further 42 officers of these ranks are expected to avail themselves of the offer in the next year. The introduction of district command units by the Chief Constable has reduced the need for superintendent ranks by 34, and his review of the headquarters structure is expected to lead to a further reduction in the number of officers of this rank. However, the Chief Constable intends to hold assessments to create a pool of successful candidates from which vacancies arising for superintendents can be filled.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Does he not agree that the pace of restructuring of the Northern Ireland police force in order to meet the Patten requirements should take account of the lack of decommissioning and the serious increase in organised crime? Will the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will take whatever action is necessary to
912
maintain a police force with the necessary skills, experience and resources to police Northern Ireland, with all its particular difficulties?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I unhesitatingly give the assurance that the Government will take no chances with security and will continue to protect the people of Northern Ireland. The Government do not believe that the need to protect against the dissident terrorist threat is a reason not to modernise the police service. In all matters such as this, the Government will take the advice of the Chief Constable. He has made clear in recent remarks that he believes that the police service can certainly cope with the current challenges, in particular the challenges brought about by the changes involved in implementing the Patten recommendations.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that a certain amount of command resilience is absolutely essential in the police service because of unexpected and sudden demands? Will he join me in paying tribute to the thousands of officers who have served in the RUC throughout their working lives—and, in many cases, given their lives—in the service of all communities in Northern Ireland?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I unhesitatingly associate myself with my noble friend's remarks. I also agree that command resilience is incredibly important. I am quite certain that the Chief Constable will ensure that that exists.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in view of the alarming domination of the civil power by drug baron paramilitaries, will the Government keep in mind the possibility—and perhaps the necessity—of increasing Army strength to prevent a complete breakdown of order?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have repeatedly said that the Government will take no chances with security. They will continue to be advised by the Chief Constable and the Army in relation to that.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord reassure the House that the Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, will permit senior staff to take early retirement only if it is consistent with the management needs of the RUC?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Chief Constable, among others, has welcomed the generous increased severance package that has been on offer for the past few months. He will, of course, ensure that the numbers remain consistent with security requirements.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what percentage of the middle and senior ranks of the RUC will have left the force by March 2002?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on 31st March 1999, there were 170 officers of superintendent

913
rank and above; on 31st March 2000, there were 172; at the moment there are 130, which means a reduction of 40 between the 31st March 1999 and the 31st March 2001. A further 42 officers of that rank and above are expected to leave by 31st March 2002, but a number of those who retire will be replaced by people who will be promoted.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend say a little more about the RUC's recent successful recruitment campaign?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in the past few months, the RUC has embarked on a recruitment campaign. There were in excess of 240 applicants, and choices in relation to that will be made in the next few months.

Business of the House: Standing Order 46
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with today to enable the First and Second Readings of the Elections Bill to be taken and on Monday 9th April to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Select Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Brabazon of Tara, Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, be appointed Chairman of the European Union Committee in the place of the Lord Tordoff and a member of the House of Lords' Offices Committee and the Procedure of the House Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

914

Clauses 5 to 33,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 34 to 56,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 57 to 65,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 66 to 69,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 70 to 99,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 100 to 120,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 121 to 138,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 139 to 141,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 142 to 148,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 149 and 150,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 151 to 154,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 155 to 157.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Elections Bill
3.37 p.m.
Brought from the Commons and on 4th April and printed pursuant to Standing Order 50, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of today).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I come to the substance of my opening speech, I should perhaps point out that one of the earlier editions of the speakers' list circulated today suggested that I would be responding to the debate for the Government. I am happy to advise the House that my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will be responding for the Government on this important Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is simple to understand. On 3rd May, local elections were due to have taken place in 34 English county councils and in 11 unitary authorities. Just under two weeks later, on Wednesday, 16th May, elections were due to have taken place in all 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. The Bill would postpone all of those elections to 7th June 2001, together with any by-elections to fill casual vacancies that would otherwise have taken place in the period 3rd May to 6th June.
I shall say a little more about the detailed provisions in the Bill in a moment, but it may be helpful to your Lordships if I were first to explain why we have decided to bring it forward. I am conscious that my noble friend the Leader of the House outlined some of our thinking on Monday when she repeated a Statement which had been made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, so I hope that I can be relatively brief.

915
The decision to postpone local elections is not one that we in government have taken lightly. As someone who, along with many of your Lordships, has a background in local government, I am acutely conscious of the importance of local elections. They are, after all, the means by which local people hold those who govern in their name to account. Nevertheless, the Government have received very strong representations that the local elections should be postponed as a consequence of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and we have paid very close attention to those representations.
As my noble friend said on Monday, our judgment was that, from a purely practical and administrative point of view, the elections could have gone ahead as scheduled. The buildings in which polling stations are located are, almost without exception, accessible by the public highway, which remains open; indeed, it is the case that, with only a tiny handful of exceptions, schools and libraries and other public buildings have remained open during the crisis, even in the worst affected areas.
Having said that, there is a world of difference between it being possible to run elections and it being desirable to do so. Both central and local government are devoting massive efforts and resources to seeking to combat and eradicate foot and mouth disease. It is quite clear that holding local elections in the middle of this work would be a distraction which would serve no useful purpose in the long-term battle to get on top of this outbreak.
We have also paid very close attention to the representations of those who have been most directly affected by foot and mouth disease. They have made it abundantly clear that they would consider it both unnecessary and insensitive to hold local elections next month. Accordingly, we have come to the view that, on balance, the national interest would best be served by deferring the elections that are due to be held next month.
Let me therefore explain to your Lordships why we have decided that the elections should be postponed for approximately a month, until 7th June.
I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that foot and mouth disease will be completely eradicated in a month's time. The experience of the outbreak in 1967 suggests that it will be many months before this country is completely free of foot and month disease. It is the case, however, that the next month will be crucial in our efforts to get on top of the outbreak. We need to ensure that we have proper mechanisms in place that enable us to deal with suspected cases instantly and ensure that the time between diagnosis of a case and slaughter of the animals affected is as short as possible. I hope that in the next month it may be possible to say that some of the areas which have had confirmed cases of foot and month disease are now free of it.
There is also another important consideration. We cannot ignore the needs of the tourism industry. It is a striking fact that for every 1 per cent of gross domestic product that comes from agriculture, 7 per cent of our GDP is generated by tourism. The tourist industry is
916
rightly very concerned about the impact that foot and mouth disease is having both on domestic tourism and, more particularly, on tourism from overseas.
If we were to postpone the local elections indefinitely, as I believe the Official Opposition have suggested, the signal that we should be sending to the rest of the world is that Britain is in a terrible state and that we have no idea when things will get better. By setting a fixed date when these elections will take place, we are showing the rest of the world that we believe that within a month we shall have in place the mechanisms to ensure the eventual eradication of this disease and that Britain is open and ready to receive visitors for the all-important summer season. Noble Lords may be interested to hear what Malcolm Bell, of South West Tourism, said when the announcement was made on Monday. His words were:
"This is a positive announcement. There's confusion at the moment about whether or not the country is open. Delaying the election until June sends out a clear message that, before the summer holidays begin, Britain is back to normal".
I should add, as many noble Lords recognised in the exchanges following the Statement repeated by my noble friend on Monday, there needs to be certainty. Local authorities, councillors, candidates and those who interact with local authorities need to be clear as to when the deferred elections will take place.
Having explained why we have brought the Bill forward, perhaps I may briefly explain its provisions. Clause 1, which applies to England and Wales, has the effect of postponing the ordinary local elections that were due to take place on 3rd May 2001 until 7th June 2001. It also, as I have indicated, provides that any local government by-elections to fill casual vacancies that would have been held within the period of the deferral will also take place on 7th June.
There are also a number of consequential provisions. The clause provides that candidates who were validly nominated before the nominations closed for the elections on 3rd April, two days ago, will remain validly nominated for the new elections without the need to submit fresh nomination papers.
However, candidates will have until 15th May to withdraw their nomination papers if they do not wish to contest the elections on the new date, and it will be possible for anyone else to submit nomination papers by 10th May. These dates are calculated, with reference to 7th June, using the normal local election timetable. For the sake of completeness, I should say that the closing date for postal vote applications will be 5 p.m. on Wednesday 30th May.
We recognise that even though, as I have just said, nominations for these elections only closed on Tuesday, after it had been announced that they would be postponed, some candidates may have already printed their leaflets. It is possible that some of these may be redundant: if, for example, they said something like "Vote Bassam on 3rd May"—it has never happened before, but one never knows. In recognition of this and of the fact that the campaign period will inevitably be longer than normal for the elections on 7th June, the election expenses limit for each candidate is raised by 50 per cent.

917
Clause 2 makes similar provisions in respect of the district council elections that were due to take place in Northern Ireland on 16th May. These, too, are moved to 7th June.
Much of the rest of the Bill, including the schedule, relates to Northern Ireland. The purpose of these provisions is to provide that if the general election and local elections fall on the same day, the polls in Northern Ireland can be combined, as they are on the mainland. Let me hasten to say to your Lordships that I am making no statement or prediction about the likely date of the general election. That is a matter for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 provides that, where local and parliamentary elections fall on the same day, the polls can be combined. That is to say, voters can attend the same polling place and use the same polling station to cast their vote for two or more elections at the same time. That provision was never extended to Northern Ireland. The reason for that is that Northern Ireland uses the single transferable vote electoral system in local government elections and it was thought that it might be too confusing if polls were combined when different electoral systems were in use.
However, we have had recent experience in Scotland and Wales of combined polls, where two or more electoral systems were in use and it is evident that it has not caused undue confusion to the electorate; nor have we seen a significant increase in the number of spoilt ballot papers. That being the case, there seems no reason why polls should not be combined in Northern Ireland, should the two elections fall on the same day, and we are therefore taking this useful opportunity to provide for that.
Detailed consequential changes to the parliamentary and local election rules are required. These are what the schedule contains. However, I can assure your Lordships that they simply mirror provisions already in force in Great Britain. Where they do not, it is as a result of consultations with electoral administrators.
I now turn to Clause 6. We recognise that local authorities, which are responsible for meeting the costs of local elections, will inevitably have incurred expenditure in preparing for elections on 3rd May and possibly, to a lesser extent, for elections on 16th May. They will also be obliged to go on incurring expenditure—for example, on printing ballot papers—until this legislation receives Royal Assent, which is why we are keen that it should reach the statute book with all due speed. We are very grateful for your Lordships' co-operation in that regard.
Clause 6 provides that the Secretary of State can set up a scheme to compensate local authorities for the additional expenditure they have incurred as a result of the deferral of the elections.
The clause also gives the Secretary of State the power to establish a scheme to compensate candidates for wasted expenditure. In another place yesterday, my right honourable friend the Home
918
Secretary said—with the approval, I believe, of all parts of the House—that he did not believe it would be right to compensate candidates of registered political parties; however, the case of independent candidates who have suffered genuine and significant financial loss as a consequence of the deferral of the elections was rather different. He said that he would be prepared to consider claims from such people sympathetically.
I have outlined briefly the purpose of the Bill for your Lordships. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, in deciding to bring it forward we had to balance many competing interests and factors. Our conclusion was that it would not be appropriate to hold elections next month, but that all concerned—local authorities, candidates and those who deal with local authorities—need the certainty of knowing when the deferred elections will take place. That is what this Bill gives them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister please amplify one statement that he made about the contribution of tourism to our gross domestic product? He said that domestic tourism provides some of that contribution, while foreign tourism provides the rest. Can the noble Lord tell the House how much each of those produces towards the 7 per cent figure?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should very much have liked advance notice of such a question. Obviously it is a matter of importance. In everything that we say and do, we need to ensure that we continue to promote the view abroad that we are very much open for business. Clearly, much of our tourism depends on people travelling to our country. I shall endeavour to undertake some research in this respect and provide the noble Lord with as good a response as I can on the balance of tourism. I quite understand the noble Lord's point. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for moving the Bill. We were also glad to hear that, despite what the speakers' list says, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will conclude the debate. It is pleasing to be given such notice, if only in a public way.
The origins of this Bill must be as extraordinary as those of any Bill ever presented to Parliament, stemming from the Prime Minister's repetition to the media in Downing Street on Monday of part of what his spin doctors told the media on Friday; namely, that the general election and the council elections for 3rd May were to be postponed for approximately a month.
The Prime Minister asked us to believe two impossible things. The first impossible thing was that his announcement was all about the council elections. No one believes that the Prime Minister would bother

919
to invite the media and make a great public statement to them in Downing Street solely about the council elections. This is the only Bill—certainly, one of so modest a size—I can think of which has warranted a personal press conference by the Prime Minister, particularly as he was unaccompanied by the relevant departmental Ministers. The fact that he stood alone gave away that he made it because he was also postponing the plans he had for the general election. As a matter of fact, he would not have needed to make an implied announcement about the general election if he and his people had not built up the idea that the general election was to be on 3rd May in the first place. As we all know perfectly well, it does not need to be held until next year.
The second impossible thing the Prime Minister asked us to believe is that although there is in his, and in the Government's, view apparently no practical reason for doing so, the 3rd May elections are being postponed for a month out of concern for the sensitivities of farmers, and others, in rural areas. But, of course, that concern is strictly temporary and time limited. Whatever happens to the foot and mouth epidemic, we are told that the elections will go ahead on 7th June. There are two things wrong about that. First, there are practical reasons why the elections, especially council elections in some parts of the country, are difficult to hold, and, secondly, no one—not even the Prime Minister—knows what the position will be at that time as far as concerns the foot and mouth epidemic. Where there are two impossible things to believe, it seems to me to be worthy of a new Lewis Carroll; I suggest, "Alastair in Wonderland".
We all know that the Prime Minister, for very good reason, got scared about the effects of the foot and mouth crisis on his planned early election, and that he dare not risk waiting until October. I, for one, wish that we could be spared this nauseating stuff about Tony thinking about the whole country. For the past four years, No. 10 has been a ruthless nest of political manipulators, constantly tweaking the tiller in response to every puff of the political wind in order to control both internal Labour politics and its national image. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats fall for it about every other week.
However, there would have been no general election problem or uncertainty—and, for example, no damage to tourism—if the Prime Minister had not driven so hard to build up expectations of an early election. The general election has not been postponed; but it will not be held early, or not as early as we had been led to believe. The council elections, perhaps only in the worst hit areas, could readily have been postponed without any international repercussions. By trying to hang on to his plan to go early, he has increased the damage to the tourist industry and extended the problems.
As we had a full debate on the subject yesterday, there no need for me to say much about foot and mouth. But, like most of us, I feel dreadful about those affected. A friend of mine in Cumberland has told me about an outbreak on a nearby farm, which finished lambing—in all weathers—late on Saturday night.
920
They killed the lot, both ewes and lambs, on Tuesday. Worse still for me, there is a group of cases in Berkeley, just outside the town. The farms are devastated. Businesses of all kinds are on the floor; and the awful stench of burning drifts over it all. So it is right not to hold the general election a year early in the midst of the crisis. It is right to postpone the council elections. But to spin first one way and then another has multiplied the damage, and we are left with this emergency Bill.
It may have an odd origin, but it is a Bill of some constitutional significance. In this country we allow the Prime Minister of the day to initiate an early general election, but we have fixed dates for local elections that should not be lightly or easily moved. We have no entrenched constitution which would, in most countries, govern such things, so an ordinary Bill—or, as in this case, a half-debated, rushed Bill—can vary the constitution. I very much regret the guillotine motion in another place that denied this Bill, like others, proper scrutiny. But it happened and it places an extra responsibility on your Lordships' House.
We have amendments that we will wish to propose on some of the provisions. I shall not refer to all of them today, but one is of particular importance. It would give the Secretary of State power by order, subject to affirmative procedure in both Houses, to deal with the situation should the foot and mouth epidemic remain out of control when it comes to the council elections on 7th June. If it is right—as it is—to postpone the local elections now because of foot and mouth, it may still be right in May. It is simply not logical to bash ahead regardless.
If the worst happens, our suggestion is that either individual by-elections or whole local areas may need further respite. In the amendment, we shall provide for objective tests of the progress in halting the foot and mouth epidemic to ensure that the delaying powers can only be invoked for that reason. Of course we all hope that they will not be necessary, but June is not far off and obviously the election process would have to start some weeks before that. The epidemic is still powerful and unpredictable, as we all know. In some areas farmers are candidates for council elections. They are sometimes long-standing councillors. How can they campaign in these circumstances? Can everyone in the most severely affected areas get a postal vote form and return it when they are stuck on the farms where they live? Those are some of the practical problems of holding local elections in the present situation, or anything like it. In my judgment it is simply not true to assert that there are no practical problems. There are.
The Minister rightly drew attention to the Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill. They bring their own complications and take up the bulk of the Bill. Those of us who follow matters in the Province wish to study the details but there is also an interesting corollary. As was said, the Northern Ireland local elections were due on 16th May, but they are to be moved to 7th June. Virtually all the complications in the Bill arise from the requirement to enable the general election to be held on the same day as the local elections; that is to say, on

921
7th June. That is the clearest signal that the general election is to be held on 7th June in spite of the Minister's attempts to fudge it.
Like all of us, I hate the reasons for this Bill's introduction. I regret the way that all this has been thrust upon us and the councils by the Government's delay, but overall it is right to postpone the council elections.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as many noble Lords said on Monday, it is dangerous to delay any election. It is worth emphasising that point. However, in the present circumstances the case is arguable and the arguments are pretty finely balanced.
Two or three weeks ago I discussed the date of the general election with my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. He said that it would be unseemly to hold a general election in view of the current problems with foot and mouth in the countryside and its effects on the tourism industry. For that reason I support the proposal in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said—I understand the reasons for the Government not being able to admit to this—we are discussing the Bill against the backdrop of the likely concurrence of the general election with the council elections. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the fiction that the general election date is irrelevant to that. The perhaps unworthy thought has also crossed my mind that the Government would prefer not to have the council elections before the general election as the results might not be those they would wish.
However, as I say, we shall not impede the Bill. A major factor in my mind is the general public view that, "You politicians are only in it for yourselves". My response is often, "Yes, we are in it for all the footslogging and the lost sleep" although, admittedly, we are also in it for the buzz, the excitement and even sometimes for the sense of doing something worthwhile. However, that general public perception and the lack of engagement of the general public with what we, as serious politicians, attempt to do for our country are of the utmost concern. If we do not recognise the way that those outside the hothouse of Westminster perceive the manner in which decisions are taken, we would be most insensitive to what is in the public mind.
The tight timetable of the legislation perhaps only reinforces the public perception of the introspection of Parliament. I am glad that this House has two days to consider the Bill. It is a matter for another place how it deals with its time but I suppose it was inevitable that it spent longer on the guillotine Motion than on the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday.
However, we could not support any proposal to make the postponement of the local elections open-ended. That would give far too much power to politicians. Whether or not the Conservatives wish to keep their heads in the sand over when the election will take place is not perhaps a matter for debate today. We
922
shall debate on Monday the amendment flagged up by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. However, we are doubtful that it is possible to apply the objective tests which he mentioned. We would be very much against a patchwork of elections taking place in some areas but not in others.
I am concerned that the provisions of Clause 7 might allow the Secretary of State to change the date of 7th June by order. We shall table an amendment to seek absolute clarity that the provisions for statutory instruments do not extend to a change of the date which is at the heart of the Bill. As has been said—it is quite clear from the comparative length of the contents of the Bill—the Northern Ireland provisions had been drawn up before the rather short provisions on the change of date of the elections in England and Wales. One can speculate as to whether the provisions were waiting in someone's out tray to be used on another occasion.
Obviously, there are pressures on parliamentary draftsmen. However, if the provisions to implement the change in England and Wales, including the orders to be made, need in total to be as long as those for Northern Ireland and are to be made by order subject to negative resolution, that is not satisfactory. We have already seen an example of the confusion and the difficulty in which officials inevitably find themselves. A circular from the Home Office—which, in these wondrous days of e-mail, appeared on my computer this morning—commences as follows:
"Some of you have noticed that one of the dates given in circular 439 is wrong".
Such an error is not surprising, given the speed with which the process has been carried out, but it is a pity that we have not been a little more competent.
I believe that Clause 7, which provides for transitional, consequential or supplemental provision, might include the scheme for compensation which is the subject of Clause 6. We are most concerned about how a compensation scheme would be calculated and approved. It should be subject to some kind of scrutiny. We support compensation for local authorities which will have incurred the expenses of a partly aborted process for the May elections and may, in some cases, face the expense of finding a new polling station where, for example, examinations are being held in schools on the relevant date. However, we do not support compensation for candidates. That is a matter on which we shall table an amendment.
The Minister confirmed what the Secretary of State said in another place yesterday; namely, that he would regard it as inappropriate for candidates of registered political parties to be compensated from the public purse. I am not sure whether we have heard that stated in the form of an undertaking that the Government will not put forward a scheme providing for that. It would be helpful if the Minister replying to the debate could give that undertaking.
The Home Secretary said that he wanted to keep open the option of compensation for farmers who intend to stand as independent candidates and bear their own costs. Because I come from a rather

923
impecunious party, many of the candidates whom I know bear most of their own costs. I do not believe that the point is particularly relevant and I am not immediately persuaded that it would be appropriate.
The issue of compensation for those who work in the countryside and are affected by foot and mouth disease, both directly and indirectly, is a large one. I do not believe that it is the way in which to begin to address the matter. It is an irrelevant point and it would be wrong for compensation for individuals to come out of the public pocket. If the Government are insistent on pursuing the matter, I invite them to consider technically whether the compensation should go to agents rather than candidates. I believe that by law the agents are required to pay the bill.
Another cost may well be incurred by the need to post election leaflets which cannot be delivered. The issue of a free post was raised in another place and, indeed, was discussed i n your Lordships' House in relation to other elections. We would like to see it used more extensively.
The placing of a limit on expenses is a different matter. I accept that some candidates will already have started their campaigns. I have a slight doubt about raising the limit because I believe that it may tend to favour those who can pay more towards the cost of the elections. However, we shall not oppose that provision.
My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton will refer to the Northern Ireland provisions. I simply observe that the different electoral processes apply not only in Wales and Scotland but also in London. I declare an interest: I was a candidate during the GLA elections last year. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office does rather better than the Home Office has done in disseminating information about the different electoral processes which apply. I observed a good deal of confusion with regard to the different systems in London. Undoubtedly it is a matter that will require resources.
I turn briefly to the practicalities. The House should be aware that, in our view, the knock-on effects of moving annual council meetings are not only bureaucratic or, indeed, personal—I wonder how many holidays have been cancelled this week—but will mean moving committee dates which follow the annual council meeting. In the real world of providing real services for real people, that means postponing decisions about service delivery. It is at this time of year, following the annual meeting and the move from budget setting to detailed planning, that so often major decisions are taken.
With regard to the dates of the police and fire authority annual meetings, the Minister in another place confirmed that the appointment term of members of local authorities runs with the electoral term of the local authority. I assume that that applies at both ends of the term, but I should be grateful for confirmation.
In addition, at present local authorities are all heavily involved in plans for introducing the executive/ scrutiny split, which is part of the Government's
924
modernisation programme. I believe that the authorities are required to submit their plans by June. Again in that respect real difficulty is bound to arise because the change of personnel in many local authorities will be postponed. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.
In asking the following question, I do not want to detain the House but rather to give notice to the Government of points that will be raised on Monday. I wonder whether it is appropriate for Clause 1(3) to be in the Bill or whether it is a matter for modification of—I am told by one of my colleagues—the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules. Perhaps the Government will consider that, although I do not expect a reply today.
Finally, does the reference to "ordinary local government election" in Clause 1(1) apply only to principal authorities, and what will be the effect on towns and parishes?
We note from the absence of government Back-Bench speakers either complete confidence in their Front Bench or their rather luke-warm welcome for the Bill. I am not sure which it is. However, as I said, we on these Benches will not impede the progress of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I, too, began my political career in local government and have a particular interest in this Bill. Indeed, I live in an authority in which local government elections are held every year. The fact that there will not be a local government election on the first Thursday in May seems a very surprising event.
This is a very important Bill. We all share a great concern for the reason that has brought it about—the appalling effects of the foot and mouth disease which has come like a plague on our country and which is having such terrible effects on so many industries. I very much share the view expressed so well by my noble friend Lord Cope about the general incompetence which has brought us to this particular position and to the need to debate this Bill today.
The postponement of an election in a democracy is extraordinary. If one looks around the world at countries that have postponed elections, one can hardly say that they provide very good examples. As I understand it, this is the first time since the Second World War that an election has been postponed. Even then, a Bill was put before Parliament every year to obtain agreement to the elections being postponed. Therefore, it is right that the matter should be debated fully in this House. I regard it as quite wrong that debate on a Bill of this constitutional importance was cut short in another place.
The Bill enjoys all-party support. Indeed, my party called for a postponement of the elections some little time ago. I believe that it would have been far better if the Bill had been introduced at that stage rather than leaving it until the very last moment. Of course, serious

925
consequences will arise for a great many people as a result of dealing with this legislation in a rush at the last moment.
I want to make two general comments about the Bill. The first concerns expatriate voters. We are conscious that effectively thousands of expatriate voters have been disenfranchised. I understand that they must all register by 5th April. As that is today's date and as the election is being postponed by a month, would it not be possible to alter the date for registration? I understand that a website exists but that it does not give all the information that expatriate voters require in order to discover whether they can obtain application forms for registration as overseas voters. Given that there is now some extra time, would it not be possible to put right that matter? It would not have been possible had this Bill not come before us. However, as the elections are being postponed, it seems that this important point could be considered.
The second general point that I want to make is that when, two years ago, we discussed reform of the House of Lords, the point was made on many occasions that the House of Lords has a long-stop power to prevent another place extending its life beyond the present period of five years. Clearly, no such provision exists in relation to local government elections, which is a serious deficiency. I raise the question of whether there should be some such provision; otherwise, how do we know that this type of Bill will not come before us at some point in the future? Of course, we do not know. No one could have expected that this situation would arise and we simply do not know what will happen in the future. Therefore, the Bill sets a precedent.
I looked into the possibility of tabling an amendment to rectify the deficiency to which I have just referred but, in view of the time constraints and other considerations, it would be very difficult to do so. The issue is outside the scope of the Bill's Long Title. However, I make the point because the issue will not go away and the Government should address it. Our unwritten constitution should contain a measure on, or place a stop against, the sudden introduction of Bills of this nature. Other such Bills might not have the support that this Bill enjoys.
Before concluding, I want to make four small, practical points about the Bill. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Cope, I believe that the terms of compensation must be generous. After all, those in local government are, to a large extent, volunteers. They get their expenses—in my day, we did not even get that—and they carry out work that all of us in public life encourage people to do. Local government will suffer considerable expense because of the delay. It is right for compensation to be generous and full, especially in relation to those areas that are badly affected by foot and mouth disease.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I had better make it clear that I was distinguishing between providing compensation for local authorities, which we support, and doing so for individuals, which we do not support.
926
I do not argue with her point about hard work, but we do not support compensation for individual candidates.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I misunderstood what she said. I think that we can all agree on providing compensation to local authorities. We should carefully consider providing compensation to others. The delay has put many people to great inconvenience and, no doubt, great expense.
My second point involves the inconvenience caused to employers and employees. Many people who stand for council elections are given three weeks off work by their employers to do the necessary work. Now what will happen? Will they be able to return to their job and get another three weeks off later on? That practical issue affects many people.
Thirdly, the proposals will have an effect on schools. The noble and learned Lord may make that point when he winds up. I recognise that most schools that are used as polling stations are primary schools, but 7th June is almost the peak time for examinations. If an authority uses a secondary school rather than a primary school for polling, that would be a serious disadvantage to candidates who are taking extremely important public examinations.
Fourthly, I want to take up another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who discussed the mechanics of the work of local government. As anyone in local government knows, after a local government election and the announcement of the result, a sequence of meetings takes place. An 11-month year will affect that sequence of meetings. There could be serious delays in, for example, planning applications—important decisions might be held up. Social services and education might also be affected, although planning would be most seriously affected. It is important for local government to know at each step of the way exactly what detailed knock-on effects will apply.
Other points could be made in this context but we can doubtless examine them in Committee. I accept that it is right to put off the local elections. This serious issue raises many more points than simply those relating to dealing with this emergency. The Bill deserves close consideration and we should not forget the major constitutional points that are raised and which need to be examined. The Bill sets a precedent and we need to understand the circumstances in which we agree to it and what we should or should not agree to in future.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has already observed, although provisions relating to Northern Ireland take up more than half of the Bill, the Minister's introduction gave relatively scant attention to it. If I were in his shoes, I should have been tempted to adopt the same tactics.

927
My second observation is that I am amazed that, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, no noble Lord who hails from Northern Ireland is in his place.
At first glance, it is not easy to see why provisions relating to Northern Ireland should be included in the Bill, bearing in mind that there has not, thank goodness, been a widespread outbreak of foot and mouth disease there to the same extent as there has been in Great Britain. Moreover, provisions relating to Northern Ireland cannot have been included on the grounds that we expect conformity across the board in the formal arrangements that we make for the governance of the United Kingdom. After all, it was only on 15th February that this House made Northern Ireland an exception to the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. We accepted then that in terms of the UK's system of government, there does not have to be uniformity in all circumstances. Indeed, that is axiomatic and entrenched now that there are devolved Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales and a Scottish Parliament with greater devolved powers. A very cogent case has to be made for changing the election date, but that case has not yet been made. That is the major principle that lies at the heart of our debate.
The honourable Member for Cannock Chase, speaking in another place last night, questioned whether it was proper for politicians to change the dates of fixed-term elections. Dr Tony Wright believes, as I do, that if circumstances arise that require the alteration of dates, the decision should be most appropriately left to the new Electoral Commission, which is an independent, non-party-political body that Parliament recently established.
As regards Northern Ireland, the Bill risks bearing the hallmarks of a gerrymander, which, of course, is not unknown in the island of Ireland. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be able to demonstrate that that is not so.
Apart from the question of principle—that is, whether, short of war or an outbreak of civil unrest, fixed terms for elections should be arbitrarily tampered with—a number of detailed practical questions need to be considered in relation to Northern Ireland.
First, the chief executive of each of the 26 district councils is responsible for the conduct of elections, with the local deputy electoral officer acting as returning officer for all other elections in Northern Ireland. Did the Government consult electoral officials about whether it was wise to make such a significant change to the arrangements for local elections in Northern Ireland, without notice, or have they merely asked officials about how to do it?
Secondly, how practical is it to make the changes at such short notice, bearing in mind the particular difficulties of conducting elections in Northern Ireland? Thirdly—a detailed point—will there be two ballot boxes at each polling station? Fourthly, will extra staff be employed to deal with busy times?
928
Fifthly, how will extra staff be organised to speed up voting, because one cannot have more than one person issuing ballot papers?
If there is a general election on 7th June—the same day as the local elections—who will have legal responsibility for the verification of ballot boxes for council elections if that is done at the parliamentary counting centre under the direction of the deputy electoral officer for the constituency? Moreover, what happens if there is a discrepancy when the council count starts on Monday, 11th June? In that regard, we should bear in mind that in many council elections, under the single transferable vote system, the last seat may be won by fewer than 10 votes—sometimes by much less than that—and that sometimes only four or five ballot papers need to go astray to invalidate the count.
Why are postal votes to be issued in two separate ways? Moreover, is it not possible to have both ballot papers issued for return in a single envelope with a single declaration? Finally, the rules for opening ballot boxes prescribe that a ballot paper in the wrong box should be counted. Why will a ballot paper in the wrong envelope not be counted? Will postal votes not be verified with other votes?
I end by stressing that this particular episode has demonstrated the case for fixed term elections for Westminster very well. Every State of the Nation survey made at regular intervals over the past 10 years has shown that there is overwhelming public support for such a constitutional change. Perhaps the Government will now undertake to provide support for Dr Tony Wright's Private Member's Bill which seeks to introduce fixed term Parliaments at Westminster.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, the reasons why this Bill has been introduced are well known and were advanced by the Minister. My purpose in speaking in this debate is not to address the crisis which precipitated it; nor is it my intention to address the implications of the Bill from the perspective of local government. There are many in your Lordships' House who can address those issues much more effectively than I can.
The Bill has constitutional implications and it is those I wish to address. I do so under two headings. The first is that of options. If it is necessary to postpone elections, what options have been considered? As we know, the Bill stipulates that local government elections shall be postponed until 7th June; others, including the Leader of the Opposition, argue for an indefinite delay. The Prime Minister, in making his statement said, "A short postponement is one thing. An indefinite delay is another". The options may be mutually exclusive. However, they are not exhaustive.
At least four other options may be considered. One is to delay local elections for a period of several months—say six months. There is no guarantee that foot and mouth disease will be under control by

929
7th June. So why not allow a little longer? That could meet the balancing test enunciated by the Prime Minister.
Another option is to provide for a postponement of some but not all elections. Why not postpone elections only in those counties affected by foot and mouth disease? That is an option that was touched upon in the other place last night. As the Minister may be aware, in the general election of 1945 polling was delayed in 23 constituencies because of trades holidays, wakes or fairs.
The third option is to provide for a postponement of six months but to permit the date to be brought forward by order. That provides some flexibility without giving a blank cheque to government.
The fourth option is to abolish this year's elections altogether and give the existing authorities an extra year of life.
My purpose in identifying these options is not to advocate one in particular. It is to show that there are several options. Given the importance that clearly attaches to changing the dates of elections, it is important that we are aware of them and that they are considered. The Prime Minister may believe that the case for 7th June is overwhelming. It may be; but the decision to postpone is ultimately one not for the Prime Minister, but for Parliament. We must therefore consider fully not only the case for postponement to 7th June, but the alternatives to that.
I therefore pose the following questions to the noble and learned Lord who is to reply. What thought was given to the alternative options? Why were they rejected? We had a partial answer in the other place to some of the options, but not to all. The Minister may also have seen an article in the Independent on Friday by my colleague at Hull University, Mark Stuart, drawing attention to the fact that the general election of 1923 occurred during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Can the Minister tell us what study the Government undertook of that occasion prior to introducing this measure?
I turn to my second heading, which concerns the criteria for delaying elections. Elections are the lifeblood of democracy; they are the means by which electors choose their representatives; they are the means of ensuring a peaceful selection of government, both national and local; and they are a peaceful means of removing a government from office. We must be extremely careful before we start interfering with the blood supply of democracy.
We have statutory provision for parliamentary and local elections. We stipulate the maximum life of a Parliament. We set dates for the holding of local elections and, indeed, for other elections. We must be wary of moving election dates, certainly of postponing them for any length of time. I see no problem with a minor adjustment, as happened in 1986, because of a clash with Passover. However, once we start postponing them for several weeks or several months, it sets a precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised that concern in putting a question to
930
the Leader of the House on Monday. We have postponed elections in wartime—a point to which I shall return—but should we be postponing them in peacetime?
If we are to postpone them, we need to be clear as to the criteria that would justify such a postponement. In short, we need to put on record the criteria that will justify what we are doing and, in so doing, set the boundaries for any attempts in the future to move election dates. I suggest that there are four essential criteria that must be met to justify delaying any election, be it parliamentary or local.
The first is that there must be a clear national crisis; that is, it must be apparent to most citizens that the country faces a domestic or international situation that affects the economic or social wellbeing or the security of the nation. The second is that the crisis must affect, materially and substantially, the capacity to conduct the elections. That may encompass campaigning as well as actual voting on polling day. The third is that there must be agreement between the parties that there is a case for delay. Unilateral action on the part of government must, in such circumstances, be avoided.
The fourth is that there must be proper parliamentary debate. Even though there may be a need for speed, this should not be at the expense of proper scrutiny. Agreement between the parties may equal might in terms of parliamentary voting strength, but might does not necessarily equal right. We need to hear all those with a view on the issue. Those who have dissenting views should not necessarily have a veto power, but it is important that their voices are heard.
All four conditions were met in time of war. Parliament agreed to postpone local and parliamentary elections in both world wars. In the Second World War, local elections were postponed initially under the terms of the 1939 Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act. That Act postponed elections until the end of 1940. In moving the Second Reading the Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, said that they would be extended by further legislation, "as circumstances require". Circumstances did require, and each year a new measure was introduced and enacted, extending in each case the delay by a further year. It is interesting that, during consideration of the measures, the question was raised by some Members of allowing elections where local citizens wanted elections to take place.
Parliamentary elections—or rather the election of Parliament—was postponed on an annual basis by a Prolongation of Parliament Act. The 1940 Bill was a one-clause Bill extending the life of the Parliament to six years, and the one the following year fell back on the Septennial Act. It was clear that when Churchill introduced the 1944 Bill, that would be the last of the Parliament.
There was a clear national crisis. The country was at war. The capacity to hold elections was significantly affected. Many of those who would normally be involved in elections, as officials or candidates, were

931
busy fighting the war. Many buildings where polling would take place were in use for the war effort and the blackout created problems for people getting out to vote. Despite the pressures, Parliament continued to meet, and the measures each Session to extend the life of the Parliament and to postpone local elections were debated, on occasion with critical voices being heard. Parliament continued to do its duty; and indeed it emerged from the war with its reputation enhanced.
So the four criteria I outlined were clearly met. Are they met in present circumstances? There is a crisis in terms of the outbreak of foot and mouth, and we do not know when it will end. The Leader of the House emphasised on Monday that, in practice, local elections could go ahead on 3rd May. However, the campaign for those elections is likely to be affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth. Candidates and their supporters may have difficulty employing their usual means of eliciting support. Some of those involved in elections are occupied attending to the crisis. Indeed, there is every likelihood—this has already been touched upon—that some potential candidates are farmers isolated in their homes.
The second criterion is thus met, although I appreciate that there is room for discussion on the point. The case is persuasive rather than conclusive. The third criterion is also met in that this measure will be going through with all-party support. However, the fact that it is going through with all-party support emphasises the point of the fourth criterion; that is, that it must have proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Proper parliamentary scrutiny has a qualitative and a quantitative dimension. By that, I mean not only must there be sufficient time to discuss the measure, but the Government must also engage in a full and frank dialogue with both Houses. I believe that the time allocated in this House is probably sufficient. It is up to us to ensure that we are satisfied with the provisions. I welcome what the Leader of the House said on Monday about consultation. It is equally important that we have an informed debate on the Floor of the House so that those outside the House can see the basis for our deliberations and our decision.
A particular responsibility falls on this House. We have the experience and the expertise to subject measures to informed scrutiny. We also have the capacity to ensure that scrutiny is adequate in a way that the other place is unable to do. I understand that we are told that we cannot discuss the procedures of the other place, that the other place is master of its own procedure, and that we cannot interfere with that. I accept that. However, where the procedures of the other place have consequences for Parliament's capacity to determine public policy, we must he able to take note of those procedures. I use this debate to make that point. I regret that I did not pursue it on the Regulatory Reform Bill. I shall pursue it in the future.
It appears that the criteria that I have outlined are fulfilled in making the case for a postponement oflocal elections. I say "appears" because some may dispute the fulfilment of the second criterion and the fourth is only partially fulfilled. Furthermore, those criteria
932
establish the case for delay. They do not help us to determine the length of the delay. That is a matter for further debate. One obvious criterion would be that applied in wartime, which is to wait until the crisis is over. However, even the events of 1945 are not conclusive, as there was disagreement on when the coalition should end. We must, therefore, address ourselves to the issue. That means a full discussion of the options that I have outlined. As the basis for that, I look forward to the noble and learned Lord providing a full response to the questions that I have posed.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, in my view this debate on the postponement of elections clearly illustrates the need in this country for a written constitution and a fixed term Parliament. Once again, I find it strangely ironic to argue for democratic principles in an unelected Chamber. Whether elected or not, one of the main purposes of a second Chamber must be to keep a careful eye on how changes may be proposed to our democratic system.
All democrats should have serious concerns about such a fundamental change to democratic rules as the postponement of any elections. One concern about this legislation is the precedent that it may set for a government, at some point in the future, to decree a national emergency as warranting the postponement of any elections. A deeply unpopular government who are facing disaster at local or national polls may decide that a particular national crisis demands the full attention of the Prime Minister and that therefore some elections should be postponed. Who knows?
It is 19 years to the day since the Falklands task force set sail from Southampton. Despite the need to chair a daily war cabinet meeting, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did not feel that it was necessary to postpone the local elections of 1982. I can think of no Prime Minister who has been so closely involved in a local election campaign that he or she has been unable to get on with the business of running the country while local election campaigns took place.
The fact that the Falklands War was an international crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak is a terrible domestic problem in some areas is not in itself sufficient of a justification to treat the two crises differently. What is different is simply that a general election is in prospect as well as local elections.
Of course, there would have been some real difficulties in conducting the local elections in some of the worst affected areas such as Devon. The strength of feeling in such areas is such that I am sure that the Government are right to postpone local elections there for a short while, but in the vast majority of areas due to have local elections on 3rd May there are no such difficulties. The question today is why are we considering the postponement of local elections across the whole country. The only real case for the postponement of all the local elections is that the general election will take place on the same day. Everybody knows that, but no one from the Government can say so "on the record".

933
The real reason why postponement of all local elections for one month is appropriate is because most people would consider it inappropriate voluntarily to choose to hold a general election at the same time as fighting a crisis that affects so much of our countryside. I have come to accept that argument with some reluctance because for Parliament to postpone any elections is a very serious matter.
I am also concerned about the signals that that may send to other countries where people are struggling to establish their democratic rights. No doubt Slobodan Milosevic now wishes that he had been able to postpone the last parliamentary elections in Serbia because of the grave crisis in that unhappy country following the failure of his military exploits.
It seems to me that if any democratic country postpones elections, any such postponement must require considerable consensus among all the main parties. I believe that that would be best guaranteed by a written constitution, perhaps requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. That would be a proper process for ensuring that the electoral cycle was not simply being manipulated for party advantage.
A fixed term Parliament would also remove what I believe is an unfair and undemocratic advantage for an incumbent Prime Minister. The Labour Party recognised such a matter in 1992, but sadly lost sight of the principle as the prospect of power loomed in 1997. I believe that it is an issue that must be addressed if the process of constitutional reform in Britain is to continue in the next Parliament.
There are a number of details in the Bill to be considered. First, there is the issue of whether 7th June is the appropriate date for postponed elections. I believe that they should not take place later because a number of councillors will have assumed that their term of office will come to an end on 3rd May—they may have made other plans for the month of May onwards—and there will be other candidates waiting to offer their services to councils who will need to know in the near future what political direction they will be taking. Above all, it also makes sense for the general election to he held on 7th June so that those elections and all the arrangements and disturbance that go with them can be combined.
Another issue before us is the request of candidates to be compensated for their consequential losses in printing literature that includes a 3rd May polling date. I understand that that was a request made by the Conservative Party. If so, that appears to be yet another occasion when the Conservative Party requests state funding in addition to that which it currently receives via the so-called "Short money", the funds paid to the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the funds paid for the implementation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and the funds shortly to be on offer from the Policy Development Fund.
934
Although my party believes that limited state funding would be better than dependency on a few wealthy individuals and organisations, we do not believe that state funding to compensate council candidates in this way would be appropriate. These elections are being postponed out of respect for the feelings of those in the countryside who are suffering from the foot and mouth outbreak. Imagine how outraged they would be if, while they await details of compensation for farmers and others, candidates who had simply printed their leaflets too early were to be compensated first. I believe that the Government should drop such an idea.
The matter of compensation to councils for their costs is a different matter. However, I was greatly surprised on Tuesday to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the Leader of the House, argue for compensation for the cost of printing the ballot papers. Our country is an even less democratic place than I thought if local authorities have been able to print ballot papers even before nominations have closed. There will be plenty of time to print them between now and polling day if the legislation falls. There will, however, be some modest costs which they must incur in publishing lists of candidates and so forth.
Overall, there should be a considerable saving to many councils if the cost of running local elections on 7th June is combined with a general election on the same day. There will be no need to hire polling stations and special staff on two different occasions.
Finally, those responsible for organising these elections, those who participate in them and indeed the whole country would benefit if we changed from a system in which the date of our elections could change according to the changing mood of the Prime Minister and in which we did not have to rely on purchasing the >Sun newspaper in order to find out when polling day would be. We would benefit from a system which provided advance certainty of when our general elections would take place.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a short question. I listened with great attention and respect. Is he advocating a written constitution?
Lord Rennard: My Lords, yes, indeed. I thought that I was specific on that point, but I was not sufficiently clear and I apologise. That has been the long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats, and would provide considerable assistance during situations such as this.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, can he tell us how many written constitutions stipulate the dates on which local elections shall be held?
Lord Rennard: My Lords, as there is no written constitution for this country, the situation has not yet arisen. I am not sure how many overseas countries have written constitutions. However, the United States, for example, has a fixed period of four years for

935
presidential elections. If the same applied to this country, we would not have the present problem of not knowing when our general election will be.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally finally sits down, that would not apply to the terms of local elections in the United States.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, I must admit that I am no great expert on local elections in the United States.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I believe that the constitutions of the states of the United States specify when the state elections should be. That is relevant to what my noble friend said. My noble friend Lord Rennard said much of what I had intended to say, so I can make a shorter speech.
It is clear that there is considerable unease about the Bill among Members on these Benches. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that as a balance must be struck between the arguments she had come down on one side. That is the view we shall take and the way we shall vote during the passage of the Bill.
It is right and proper that concern and disquiet should be expressed about the way in which the date of public elections was unilaterally changed by the Prime Minister at almost a moment's notice and in the knowledge that he could use his parliamentary majority in another place to ensure that that was agreed. Would we be discussing the Bill here today if there were not a general election in the offing? The answer is probably not.
We might well have been discussing a Bill about Northern Ireland, because it is clear that the Northern Ireland sections of the Bill have been in preparation for more than a couple of days. It is equally clear that the sections which refer to England and Wales were put together on the back of a fag packet, or whatever people use in these non-smoking days, in the couple of days before the Bill went to the Commons.
We might indeed have been discussing the kind of measure suggested by my noble friend Lord Rennard and the noble Lord, Lord Norton; that is, the ability of the Government to postpone the local council elections in areas where there is serious difficulty. No one who knows Cumbria could argue that a postponement of elections there does not have a great deal of merit.
The Bill postpones all the by-elections which are scheduled from 3rd May onwards. However, there does not appear to be a great need to postpone the pending by-elections in Islington or the middle of Manchester. I do not suggest that the Government have paid attention to the fact that the Liberal Democrats are likely to win those two seats from the Labour Party, but that will probably be the case whenever the elections are held.
By-elections have been taking place since the foot and mouth outbreak began and they will take place today. They will continue to take place in dribs and drabs until 3rd May when suddenly they will stop.
936
There seems to be no great logic behind that. It is substantially agreed across the parties that it would he wholly inappropriate to hold a general election on 3rd May and there is general agreement that the local elections should therefore be postponed. That was put forward most eloquently by my noble friend on our Front Bench. However, it has become clear that the support given from these Benches is accompanied by two cheers and not three and by considerable reservations.
There are strong alternative views within local government in many parts of the country. They were expressed, for example, by the Labour leader of Cheshire County Council and by the leader of the Labour controlled Lancashire County Council where I live. I hesitate to suggest that I speak for them in any way, but it is right that those reservations should be expressed here today.
Issues of principle are involved when politicians postpone scheduled elections. Not for the first time, this House should be grateful for the presence here of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who can better express these matters from his expertise and intelligent observation. I look forward to reading his speech in Hansard and I hope that the Government do, too. I hope that it will be taken as a first stage in the establishment of principles on which such decisions can be made in future.
There is an irony, perhaps a paradox, that in this country it is being suggested that if we have a severe national crisis the answer is postponing democratic elections. Together with the rest of Europe and the United States, we are telling people that if they have severe crises in their countries they should hold democratic elections because that is part of the answer to crises. We would have been horrified if Milosevic had been able to postpone the elections in Serbia.
Bosnia lurches from crisis to crisis almost by the day. Part of the answer which is being pressed on Bosnia by the international community is to hold more elections. In the past few years since the Dayton agreement, Bosnia has held more elections than any other democratic country. If we are sending a message to people such as President Mugabe that the answer is to postpone elections when things become difficult, we have a problem. If while we are telling the rest of the world, "If you have severe crises, rely on democracy to help sort them out", we are seen to be going against that advice, there is an irony and perhaps an illogically.
It is not clear why the Government believe that the census can go ahead when elections cannot. It is not clear why the Government are telling tourists that the countryside is open and that they should go to the countryside. I read in the newspapers that Labour MPs are being forbidden to go to foreign countries for the Easter holidays and are being told that anyone seen in the South of France, for example, will be severely reprimanded. I can promise them that I shall be in the South of France and I shall report anyone I see there. If the message is that the countryside is open but people cannot do something as simple as casting their vote. there is a lack of reason.

937
There are serious concerns. Certainly, the Government will get the message that they are unlikely to receive support from our party if the postponement goes beyond 7th June. Having said that, it is clear that this Bill will pass into law.
I should declare an interest. I am involved in organising our local election campaigns, which have already started. Not only have we printed leaflets bearing the date 3rd May but we have delivered them through letterboxes. That gives us an excuse to print some more leaflets to tell people that, after all, the election will be on 7th June. But our party has never been averse to printing more leaflets.
Another concern is expenses. I agree with the point raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about rich and poor parties. But there is also a concern that if campaigns are to last much longer even the revised expense limit for those who print lots of leaflets will not be enough. I am advised that if there is a deferred election because of the death of a candidate the expense limit is doubled to allow for the re-election. I would have thought that a doubling of the expense limit was more sensible than a 50 per cent increase. However, 50 per cent is welcome.
I turn to postal votes. RPA Circular No. 440, which I believe my noble friend quoted, states that,
"The arrangements for the elections on 3 May will he transferred to 7 June by the Bill. Electors who have applied for postal votes for 3 May only can therefore continue to be included on the postal voters list for 7 June".
One is not sure where to look for the changes to the rules which allow that to take place. The position is fairly strict. If one makes application for a postal vote for an election on a particular day it applies to that day. Can the Government tell the House whether that will be covered in subsequent regulations—if not, how it will be dealt with—so that returning officers are absolutely clear that, as a matter of course, if they have received postal vote applications for 3rd May they should be transferred to 7th June, unless the electors indicate otherwise?
There is also a question about the inspection of nomination papers and consents to nomination. That may not be something which a lot of people do in this country, but in parts of the world where there is experience of electoral fraud and forgery that happens. There is provision in Rule 9 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 for the inspection of nominations which have been submitted following nomination day. The question is: which nomination day now applies to that? Can nominations which were submitted and accepted before nomination day two days ago now be inspected, or does one have to wait until after the next nomination day in early May?
Finally, I am confused—perhaps it is my fault—about the particular electoral registers which are involved in these elections. It is clear from the circular sent out that the register which tells one who is qualified to vote is the new rolling register to be published in early May. I am not clear about the qualification for signing nomination papers for these
938
elections because we have had a series of different dates. Which register will be in force for those people who sign nomination papers up to and including the new nomination day? These are important matters. Unless the Government get the amended rules and system right people will find themselves, through no fault of their own, in difficult circumstances.
If there is to be a new document to amend the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules for England and Wales when is it likely to be available? How extensive do the Government believe the required changes to the rules will be?
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the Bill as the right thing to do in dire circumstances, but I strongly believe that the Government made the decision about whether or not to delay the local elections a great deal more difficult for themselves than it needed to be. Undoubtedly, they have let the timing of the general election cloud the issue of whether or not the local elections should be postponed. To the extent that Ministers backed themselves very deeply into a corner by making dire predictions of what would be the consequences for the tourism industry of this country if the elections were delayed, that is precisely what has happened. They have ended up with the worst of all worlds. Had they not concentrated so heavily on the timing of the general election and its relationship to the local elections, the decision could have been taken a great deal earlier with less collateral damage to the tourism industry, which we greatly support and seek to shore up under very difficult circumstances.
The House should be under no illusions about the constitutional importance of moving elections, be they general elections or local elections. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth covered those issues in considerable detail, and I am sure that the House is greatly in his debt. However, this debate emphasises the importance of your Lordships' House in terms of discussing constitutional arrangements. Although it is a convention of this House that it does not discuss what goes on in another place, it is clear from the thinness of Hansard that the guillotine was applied. It would be very difficult to argue that a thorough debate took place in the House of Commons and that every Member who wished to speak was able to put his view on this extraordinarily important and constitutionally significant issue. The debate was guillotined and the Bill sent here with all speed.
We have the ability to conduct our debates in this Chamber at our own speed. It is clear that, while the Government could well have taken a decision without all-party support in another place and got the measure through, in your Lordships' House they would have had very much more difficulty if they not been able to secure that support. As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, when one comes to consider the question of the potential postponement of general elections, as in the past your Lordships' House has a very important role to play. Now that the decision has been taken to delay the local elections until 7th June, I urge

939
the Government, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is to respond on their behalf, to consider very carefully the need for flexibility and the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Cope.
We are told that two clear criteria led to the postponement of the local elections: the need for politicians to focus on handling the epidemic and the feelings and sensitivities of those most directly affected. Clearly, no Minister will now stand up and make predictions about exactly where the epidemic will be in two, three or four weeks' time, or by 7th June. We do not know how much time will be required by local and central government politicians to continue to focus on handling the epidemic. It is also clear that even by 7th June both central and local government will be required to undertake a very great management task.
As to the second criterion, it is not difficult to predict that the feelings and sensitivities of those most directly affected, who have had their livelihoods taken from them in the most extraordinarily trying circumstances, will still he considerable on 7th June. The suggestion of my noble friend would at least provide a measure of flexibility. I agree with members of the Liberal Democrat Party who have said that they do not want to sign blank cheques in relation to the postponement of elections. Given the position of your Lordships' House, as I mentioned earlier, over postponing elections, clearly that is not something which this House would want to do without some very carefully defined criteria about the circumstances in which additional delay is created. I say no more about that beyond urging the Government not to stick to 7th June, chosen for no particularly obvious, scientific or closely argued reason. It was a date supplied to the Sun newspaper last Friday.
Perhaps I may raise a few points of detail. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, does not have time to respond, I shall be very happy to receive a letter from him. Clause 1 deals with the circumstances of candidates who have already been nominated. Can the Minister confirm the situation as regards new candidates who have not already registered? The explanatory notes say that the deadline for new candidates in England and Wales will be extended to 10th May, but I do not see that in Clause 1. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can put me straight on that.
As regards an additional expenditure allowance or allowing candidates to spend up to 50 per cent more, there is a provision in the Bill which states that whenever such candidates were nominated, if they have not already done so, they would have an advantage in being able to spend 50 per cent more than their opponents who might well have already spent their additional 50 per cent. I wonder what is the argument for allowing candidates, who have not yet put themselves forward, still to be able to spend 50 per cent more. Perhaps I am not correct on that.
I believe that the Minister needs to give the House further clarity about compensation. There is widespread agreement among noble Lords who have
940
spoken that local authorities should be compensated for expenses incurred in staging elections. I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say that the Secretary of State might leave open the option of compensating independent candidates, but not those from political parties, as recognised under the law. The House deserves slightly more explanation of why that should be. It seems to discriminate in favour of one candidate against another.
Clause 7 gives a fairly wide power for the Secretary of State to bring forward consequential, transitional or supplemental provisions. It would assist the House if the Minister were able to indicate, not exactly what the measures would be, because they would be defined, but the type of areas which would be covered by the provisions. I raise these detailed points at this stage to enable the Committee stage to proceed more quickly. However, I welcome the introduction of the Bill although with a sense of deep regret at the terrible circumstances which led to it.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, as many noble Lords will know, I am the leader of Essex County Council and therefore have a direct interest in the elections. I am standing again. I have already printed my leaflets. Therefore, I have already incurred some expense. But I am not asking for compensation for that. I agree with noble Lords who have said today that candidates should not be reimbursed for expenses already incurred, but certainly councils' expenses should be reimbursed. I may return to that in a moment.
Essex was the first county with an outbreak of the foot and mouth disease. It was first found there. I live in a village which had one of the first signs saying, "You are now entering a foot and mouth restricted area". For many weeks I have been saying that we should know what we are doing. There has been total confusion in local government over the past few weeks. Although the position has now been clarified by the Government, I wish that that had been done earlier. I have many friends in Devon and Cumbria, and it was quite apparent two or three weeks ago that there could be no county council elections in those counties. I come from a farming background and I know of the chaos and crisis in those two counties. In the rural counties, such as Devon and Cumbria, most local government members represent the countryside.
Several noble Lords have referred to the confusion and I, too, should like to concentrate on it. I am the leader of a council which had planned an annual meeting. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation as regards such meetings. Clearly, there can be no annual meetings of councils with elections pending until after those elections have taken place. Therefore, it should be stated in the Bill that the annual meetings of councils with forthcoming elections should he held afterwards. I gather from the Explanatory Notes that the measure is designed for all councils because there may be by-elections which affect the balance of power in such councils. Any council can now have its annual meeting in June, but I should like clarification of when

941
those meetings should be held. As has already been said, this affects fire and police authorities where in particular the county members could alter the balance of power. I should like some clarity on those issues.
Management of a county will be very difficult for the next month or two because, as has already been said today, by the end of June we have to submit our proposals for the new modernisation agenda. I hope that the Government will allow some latitude in the dates because if we are not to have elections until early June, and if we have our annual meeting in the middle of that month, it will be impossible to submit proposals to the Government by the end of June for the reform of local government structures. I hope that the Government will comment on that.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke about meetings. We had some planned for the new council after May. As the leader of the council, I shall have to consider how we can manage the business of the council until we have an annual meeting in June. It is difficult because in Essex the Labour leader is retiring and many of my most able councillors are not standing again, mainly because of age. All three parties will have quite a change-over of county councillors. Many of them have planned holidays and visits with their wives to see their children. There is quite a difficult management problem for my county over the next few months. Both my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to this matter. I hope that the House will understand our difficulty.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and with my noble friend Lady Young that this Bill raises constitutional issues. We have had certainty in local government about elections. Now, for the first time in my 30 years' experience, it is being changed. I support the Bill because of the crisis in the country, but this is something which we would not wish to see again. I hope that we can do something about the constitutional arrangements for the local government elections so that there is some certainty about our election dates. I support the Bill at this stage, but I wish that we had had it earlier.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I shall speak specifically about Northern Ireland. Over the past four years since 1996 and the alleged IRA ceasefire, a great deal of legislation has passed through your Lordships' House in direct contradiction of what was taking place in other parts of the United Kingdom. We were told that Northern Ireland was different: the political circumstances and the terror campaign together put Northern Ireland in a different category from the rest of the United Kingdom.
In this Bill we now have the assertion that we must not draw a distinction between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom because of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. As has already been said, there has been one case of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland. The disease has been contained due to the excellent work of the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.
942
We have heard the Prime Minister say repeatedly that to postpone elections would send out the wrong signal to potential tourists. At this time of the year Northern Ireland is influenced to a great extent by the number of tourists it can attract to its shores.
It would be the wish of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland that they be allowed to hold their local government elections on 16th May as scheduled. Therefore, one must ask whether these local government elections are being postponed because of foot and mouth disease. The answer to that is an emphatic "No". Many by-elections have been held over the past 30 turbulent years. People have been killed because of their religion, the way they speak and the way they vote.
In the wake of internment being introduced in August 1971 there was a real crisis in Northern Ireland. In 1972 many nationalists resigned their local authority seats in protest at the way that internment had been introduced. That did not stop the elections. The then Conservative Government allowed elections to take place. They said that they could not stop the elections taking place. That meant that bigoted unionists, who were totally opposed to the nationalist beliefs of those who had resigned their seats, walked in and took seats on an unopposed return. That was a clear violation of the democratic wishes of the people in those local government areas.
Nineteen seventy-two was one of the worst years of the Northern Ireland troubles. Over 472 people were killed in that year. Early in that year one of my party colleagues in the dock area of Belfast, in which I was also a councillor, resigned his seat. That meant that there had to be a by-election. I spoke to the Minister in charge of Northern Ireland at the time. I said to him, "Could we not postpone this election?" because if we did not it would mean that a unionist who was diametrically opposed to my political beliefs would take that seat. I decided that we could not let them have that seat. What happened then was that I could not get a candidate to fight the seat. The IRA threatened that whoever was to stand for it would be killed. In fact at the last minute I had to put forward my wife.
At this time there is no justifiable reason to prevent the Northern Ireland local government elections going ahead. The Government should take that into consideration.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, this mini debate is but a token of what it should be, but it is infinitely greater than what was offered by the other place when considering the measure. It is a matter of constitutional import. The speech by my noble friend Lord Norton emphasised that. I should like to try to underline some of his comments. It is a simple test. Imagine that this was taking place not just ahead of a general election but just after a general election. Suppose we then had the foot and mouth epidemic and we had ahead of us the local authority elections. I cannot believe that a government would argue that those elections should be postponed.

943
The whole history of life is this determination to hold elections come what may. During the war there may have been a party truce but there was never a suspension of the by-elections, many of which carried a message that reverberated across the nation and to the fighting front. What is proposed is not what would have been suggested in the alternative theoretical circumstances outlined. What would have been suggested would have been a means of identifying in Devon and in Cumbria where there should be special arrangements. Maybe there were special arrangements nationally to make voting that much easier. We have those circumstances now. Just as for the 1945 general election—there may be problems of hybridity—special arrangements could have been designed for those areas acutely affected by the foot and mouth disease. The Lancashire seats affected by Wakes Weeks were given different voting occasions from the general election that took place in the spring of that year.
The problem has arisen because of the proximity of the local authority elections and the intended chosen date for the general election. It is not so much because of the problems which will affect an election in the areas of the foot and mouth disease, dire though they will be, I do not deny. I cannot believe that the Government would not secure quite a high turn-out in the areas affected because the voters will wish to make their opinions known and their political influence felt. I do not think that we would have a situation where there was a minimal vote in the areas affected by foot and mouth, although I agree that their differences should be recognised.
What is at stake here is the welcome decision by the Prime Minister to see that this foot and mouth scourge required national political leadership. It required his identification with the scourge and with all the plans that had to be co-ordinated to give most effect to countering it. He could not set that role aside as a part-time occupation in order to lead a party in the general election. Nor could he put to one side the task of being the supremo in fighting foot and mouth to take time off to fight a general election.
That is the background to this device. That is the real underlying constitutional case to be considered. We are being asked to nod this legislation through. I shall nod it through. But the time will come when the annals of these two or three days' debates will be looked at by students outside this place and people concerned with our constitutional liberties. They will see that we have been sleepwalking and it is only in this place that there is any reasonable voice raised to alert us to the danger.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with your Lordships' agreement, I should like to make a very small intervention, not on the scale of the one that has just been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, explained in introducing the Bill that there had been no problems in Scotland and Wales in voting on the same day on two electoral systems. Therefore, it was thought that it was quite possible to do that in Northern Ireland.
944
As someone who was on duty outside quite a large busy polling station on the day when the Scots Parliament and local government were elected on different election systems there were problems for some people. It may be helpful to the Government if I point out those problems now before we come to Monday and the Committee stage.
The problems were twofold. The first problem was that some voters came thinking that they were taking part in a single poll for two different bodies. They knew what the two bodies were. They thought it was a single poll. They were confronted with two ballot papers, which surprised them. They thought they had to vote for the same party on both papers. Some were confused because their particular view about the election was that they wanted to vote for different parties. Confusion could have been avoided if there had been an official explanation that this was not the case. The parties had been saying it and it had been aired in the media quite often. Nevertheless, a significant number of people were confused by that.
I raised the other problem during the passage of the Scotland Bill. I was told that it would not happen, but it did. I refer to the colour coding which involved two different colours for the two bodies which were to be elected. That is what is planned in the Bill. It was difficult for people who were colour blind. The reason for that was that colours had to be found for the ballot papers that were not associated with political parties. The colours with which we ended up were difficult for voters—it turned out that it was mostly male voters—to distinguish between. It was a real problem because not only were the ballot papers different but the ballot boxes were marked with the same colour as that which was on the ballot paper. I do not know whether it should be legislated for, but the Government need to ensure that the colours are bright and of a kind which are distinguishable by people who have that problem.
Those may not be big problems on the ground but they are sufficient to upset people. I should have thought that, with the sensitivities in Northern Ireland, both points are worth thinking about.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in this matter in that I am a member of Suffolk County Council. As a local authority member, I was warmed by the sudden focus on and interest in the county council elections. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and have made such interesting contributions from a variety of perspectives. In that regard, I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and to my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton for focusing on the provisions in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland, which actually form the bulk of it but have received rather less attention than they would otherwise have deserved.
When I was re-elected to the county council in May 1997, I knew exactly how long my term of office would be and was able to pencil into my diary the date of the election. As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed

945
out, since even war in the Falklands had failed to disrupt the local democratic processes, it seemed like a fairly safe bet for me to do that. Even until recent weeks, when it became increasingly clear that it would be highly inappropriate and damaging to the democratic process to hold a general election in May, there was a fairly widespread view among local authorities that the local elections could go ahead in all but the areas worst affected by the foot and mouth crisis.
In practical terms there is no reason why the elections could not have gone ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, conceded that point at the beginning of the debate. Of the 24 million people who are represented by county and unitary authorities affected by this legislation, a relatively tiny number of people would have serious reason to suppose that their participation in the democratic process would be significantly hampered by the election being held on 3rd May. Postal deliveries are carrying on almost unaffected, suggesting that political parties would be able to deliver their leaflets. Indeed, by recognising the longer campaign and extending the expenses limit accordingly, it is likely that more people will be walking around the countryside delivering more pieces of paper in this extended campaign. People in rural areas are still getting out and about to work, school and shops, and would therefore have been able to vote. In fact, as my noble friend Lord Greaves pointed out, the fact that the census is still due to take place demonstrates that the reasons for delaying the election are not based on practical considerations.
The real reason is to provide a fig leaf for the otherwise appropriate decision not to go ahead with the general election on the date which, if the media are to be believed—it appears that the Sun usually is—was pencilled in as long ago as 1997. While I agree that holding a general election during a crisis of this kind would have been highly undesirable, I am less than happy to think that the Government's unwillingness to hold national elections after a set of potentially bad local election results has in any way influenced their decision to delay local elections. There is every difference in the world between choosing not to exercise the Prime Minister's right to set his own date for the election and a decision to postpone dates which are fixed.
What really concerns me is the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the legislation should provide an open-ended delay. In my view, that would represent an entirely unjustifiable and dangerous control by the executive over local democratic processes and must be resisted at all costs. There are serious practical implications from this step. Local authorities are big business. My own authority in Suffolk is the largest employer in the county, with some 23,000 full-time equivalent staff. The various budgets come to over £1 billion a year. Local authorities are run like businesses, with planning and budgetary frameworks that affect the lives of people in
946
their areas and run to millions of pounds. These cycles are predicated on four-year electoral cycles and should not be altered lightly.
The uncertainty created by the open-ended delay proposed would be horrendous and would have serious practical results. For example, in Suffolk the structure plan is due to be determined within the next few weeks, creating the framework within which many thousands of new homes will be built in the county. It is a decision worth billions of pounds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, the development control planning system could be severely hindered by such delays. As the noble Baroness has recognised that, it seems strange that her Benches support open-ended delay. Some 25 per cent of councillors are due to stand down in May. While they may be prepared to hang on for another four weeks, any delay beyond that will see the gradual erosion of their numbers, leaving large areas of the country unrepresented at county and unitary level. In finely balanced authorities, political control could change without a single vote being cast anywhere. That would be a travesty of democracy.
Even with a one month delay, there are some serious issues to be addressed, either today or in Committee on Monday. As we have heard, annual general meetings are due to take place in May, as are those of the police authorities and combined fire authorities. Those are all affected by the delay. I should like some clarification today as to how these changes will be managed.
Councils are due to make their final decisions about the new structures required under the Local Government Act. That must be done by June. That means that new councils, with around a third of their number being new councillors, and with many having changed political control altogether, will be asked to take these important decisions within days of an election. Will the Government consider a dispensation for those authorities affected by the legislation so that they can make their structural changes later, perhaps by the end of July?
Local councils are currently in a pre-election purdah, which affects the style of their public announcements and the way in which public relations are dealt with. Is that purdah to be lifted after Royal Assent and then reintroduced, or will it remain indefinitely?
We on these Benches are greatly concerned about compensation for individual candidates and hope that we can have some clarification on that issue, either today or in Committee on Monday. We should like to press the Government to give more thought to the issue of freepost leaflets for council elections.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that the issues are finely balanced. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for giving us an intellectual framework within which we can consider the issues. On balance, we will support the legislation. We will not impede it in any way. However, we have significant reservations. Some of them may be addressed through discussion today and on Monday, but others will remain a difference between us.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am bound to point out that, apart from the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, the burden of the debate has been borne by the Liberal Democrats and the Official Opposition. There has been a distinct lack of interest from elsewhere. The contributions to the debate have been of an extremely high standard. I am sure that the Government will take particular note of that.
My noble friend Lord Cope said that it is an extraordinary Bill. As the debate has proceeded, those words have seemed prescient. Running throughout the debate has been a very real cynicism as to why the Bill has been brought forward at all. Of course there are problems over the county council elections and the proper democratic processes, but the fact that the election postponement was first seen in the Sun was a poor way for the matter to have been dealt with. There are other and more appropriate places for the announcement of the postponement of elections to be made. It might have been better if both Houses of Parliament had been given the benefit of the Prime Minister's thoughts on the matter before the press were able to announce the decision with such fervour and vigour.
The Bill delays the county council elections, but we have all agreed today that it concerns not only those elections. The only rational reason why the Bill has been introduced is because the Prime Minister wishes to delay the general election. Of course that rationale came about after he had made a field trip into the country and finally, I believe, saw for himself the terrible constraints under which people in rural areas are operating at present. I do not think that anyone would want to deny the difficulties, concerns, problems, unhappiness and misery affecting many parts of the country. Not all regions are affected, but where there are problems from foot and mouth disease, those are very real.
Furthermore, no one would want to deny the difficulty of trying to manage the democratic process for people living in the affected parts of the country. Those problems, too, are very real indeed. As has already been pointed out, several candidates are farmers, who are now stuck behind their five-bar gates displaying notices stating, "Come no further. Foot and mouth disease". They would find it extremely hard to canvas effectively or to fulfil their democratic duties. Equally, it would be hard for people to get to them to ensure that they can receive material relating to the democratic process, even if they are not directly taking part in it.
But why will all this be over by 7th June? Why has that date been plucked out as the day by which everything will have been brought under control? The situation as regards foot and mouth disease will have improved to such an extent that the Prime Minister will be able to say with full confidence that all the problems that existed for 3rd May will not equally exist for 7th June. That is the reason why my party has suggested that to put a final date of 7th June on to the
948
face of the Bill is unwise. It would have been much better to leave the date open so that. if necessary, the process could be extended—if not for the whole of the country, then for those areas where foot and mouth disease might still be as prevalent as it is now. That is the reason why we have suggested that the firm date of 7th June should not be put into the Bill in the way proposed. If that is agreed, we shall not have to repeat this debate if the situation should remain the same. However, my cynicism urges me to think that 7th June will be the date, whatever happens. None the less, we still have to keep up the pretence that we are discussing only the county council elections and not the general election.
The debate has covered not only the merits or demerits of the Bill, it has also touched on the extremely important constitutional issues which have been raised by what is being proposed. The postponement of an election in this country, one of the seats of democracy, is more than unusual: it is an absolutely unique occasion. My noble friend Lord Norton, along with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and, to an extent, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have all underlined—along with my noble friend Lady Young—the real concerns that have been raised about the constitutional issues relating to delaying elections. I am certain that that does not have to be emphasised in this House, but I hope that this will be taken on board and that such an event will not take place again without all the detail of such an expediency being worked out very carefully indeed.
Apart from the problems associated with foot and mouth disease, the matter of tourism has been raised in our debate. I know that this formed part of the important debate held yesterday in your Lordships' House. Not only are farmers affected by the foot and mouth outbreak, tourism also is suffering, in particular in those areas which normally welcome many tourists at this time of year. Tourism has been high on the agenda of Ministers going around the country and I understand that it has formed an important part of the rationale behind the Bill. Of course we accept that that aspect of this situation must be taken into account.
The practical issues relating to the delay have been spelt out very well. We are lucky to have in this House a number of noble Lords who not only will he standing in the local elections, but who have great experience of them. I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. They have drawn attention to all the details that must be attended to. Those points were also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who probably knows more about elections that the rest of the House put together. The practical issues surrounding this decision should not be underestimated; they are serious and they need to be dealt with properly.
I take some issue with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who seemed to suggest that the Conservatives believe that everyone should benefit from swathes of compensation as a result of what has gone wrong. That is not the case and never has been.

949
My honourable friend in the other place raised the issue of what might happen if a great deal of money had been spent, but it has never been our intention that individual candidates should be compensated. I should like to make the Conservative position quite clear: we do not think that people should be compensated. The question of independent candidates who are funding themselves because they have no party behind them was raised and perhaps has not yet been resolved. However, in common with all noble Lords who have spoken today, we believe that, from the candidates' point of view, this is probably just bad luck which will have to be dealt with in some other way.
A great part of the Bill is devoted to Northern Ireland. We were lucky that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was in his place and was thus able to speak in the gap. We are grateful for his contribution, as we are to the noble Lord, Lord Smith. Had the noble Lord not spoken, those provisions would have passed without notice, and two-thirds of the Bill would have been without comment. That is why we need the experience of Northern Ireland Members. I hope that we shall have the benefit of that experience again when we consider the Bill in Committee on Monday. That will ensure that the provisions relating to Northern Ireland will be thoroughly scrutinised.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made an extremely powerful speech, explaining to the House how Northern Ireland has survived over the past years and how the democratic processes over here have not always made it easy for those in Northern Ireland. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to come to the House on Monday. As other speakers have said, we need to scrutinise this Bill as carefully as possible. It is vital that this House undertakes the duty—the time for which was not allocated in the other place—of examining the detail of this legislation. In this country a Bill of this magnitude—however short it may be—cannot be seen to go through without having been given the most careful thought. We must ensure that it is put forward correctly, all the issues having been taken into account.
From this side of the Chamber we shall certainly do that—no doubt many other noble Lords will join us—to ensure that the Bill, to which ultimately we shall agree, has been made clear in its detail. Our agreement to it has been clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and by my noble friend Lord Cope. However, we do not believe that such a Bill, and in particular one which has so many question marks over the reasoning behind it, should simply coast through both Houses.
5.49 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, as the House knows, I have had a very long connection with Wales and with those who farm in Wales. The troubles that have afflicted our colleagues who are concerned with farming all over the United Kingdom were reinforced when a number of us made the rather sad journey to Anglesey for the funeral of
950
our late friend Lord Cledwyn. It was almost exactly the time that foot and mouth was discovered in Anglesey. So we proceed on the common ground that we feel deep sorrow and sympathy for all those who suffer.
The two characteristics that struck me in listening to the debate—I have had the pleasure of hearing every speech—were that one finds not only expertise in this House but also independence of mind and thought. Both characteristics are sometimes inconvenient to someone in my position, but not on this occasion.
It seemed to me that the debate separated itself into two constituents. First, there were some heavy-hitting contributions on wider constitutional matters. I agree that they are not to be overlooked simply because we are dealing with local, rather than national, elections. The second constituent concerned particular points of question.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with his customary courtesy, said that it might be helpful if particular questions of detail were answered in writing. Other noble Lords took the same approach. I shall take up that offer, if I may. I am not a Home Office Minister, but I undertake on behalf of the Home Office that all questions will be answered—probably, I hope, in a compendious letter, which should go out tomorrow—so that we will, if at all possible, have settled some outstanding issues before we come to the Committee stage. A number of your Lordships suggested that as a sensible outcome, and that will be done.
A number of questions were asked as to why postponement was necessary at all. I detected incipient schizophrenia in some of the speeches, which seemed to be uncertain as to whether this was a good idea or something to be abominated at all costs. How those different approaches are to be reconciled I cannot venture to suggest.
The best summary, if I may say so, was the one which came from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She said there was a feeling—I take her phrase—that it would be unseemly to press on with local elections in early May. I think that that feeling was generally expressed in every corner of the House.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but, in the conversation which I had with my noble friend, the description "unseemly" in fact applied to the prospect of a general election.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, invites me to talk my way out of that one—and, accordingly, I shall. The phrase struck my mind as being equally appropriate for the concerns and problems that people have about local elections.
The noble Baroness asked about the compensation scheme. I can give an undertaking on behalf of the Home Secretary that there will be consultation with parties on the form of the scheme. She asked for a specific undertaking that the compensation scheme is not intended to be used for candidates. I give that undertaking.

951
The noble Baroness asked whether Clause 1(3) should be in the Bill or in the principal area rules. She asked a linked question—it came at the same time—about whether the Bill extends to town and parish councils. The advice that we have is that the changes need to be made in primary legislation. The answer to the second question is yes. She further asked a point of detail about the term of members of police and fire authorities. Her question was whether the change applied at both ends. The answer is yes.
I am seeking to go through my response in the order in which the questions were put. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, introduced a question—which was further developed by both the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Lord, Lord Biffen—about whether or not we were in danger of overlooking the constitutional consequences. That was developed further—in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, from the Liberal Democrat Benches—into a question of whether or not we should have a written constitution and whether or not there should be entrenched mechanisms to prevent elections being postponed. That is an interesting debate for another day or days. I expect that we shall return to it.
The fact that I respond in that way does not mean that I undervalue the debate. Local elections are in a different position from general elections in terms of flexibility. I do not know which constitutions abroad have entrenched provisions about local elections. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, may want to offer the answer that if we had a written constitution—if we wished to go down that route—we could accommodate particular provisions about local elections.
It is an important step. We should not overlook the fact that local democracy is an important constituent of our national life and democracy. I take the point that, simply because this is a one month delay, we should not say that it does not really matter. It is fair to say that any objective reader of our debate today would not be able to conclude that we had rushed at this issue without looking at the more fundamental questions.
The question of expatriate voters was put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The position is that returning officers will have been able to advise anyone asking for guidance that 12th March was the cut-off date for the election on 3rd May. The next target—to get on the register to be published by 1st May—was today. If intending voters are not registered now, they would not have been registered for 3rd May in any event.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but perhaps I may ask for clarification. He gave the date when overseas voters had to register; it clearly has moved from March to the May date. Can it not move further now that the elections are to be in June? That was really my concern.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am dealing with the present state of the law. I shall certainly take on board the noble Baroness's question, but plainly, as
952
things presently stand, I have no authority—however much I would wish to have it—to simply by diktat alter the law of this country.
The noble Baroness also raised a question about educational institutes. Of course we expect returning officers to be sensitive in their choice of polling stations. I shall allow myself a very modest tease in the spirit of harmony that has informed our debate. The general elections in 1983 and in 1987 both took place in June, I believe, at the imperious command of the then Prime Minister, who, I believe, was the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, raised a number of questions. I believe that he had been courteous enough to give advance notice. I have all the answers, which I can repeat, but it may be more convenient to your Lordships if they are written. I was very grateful that those detailed questions had been notified to officials in advance.
I do not want to sound patronising—it is the last thing I have in mind—but I found the speech and contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, extremely important, as they would have been even had they been free-standing and quite apart from our present debate. Much of what he said resonates with all of us—it certainly resonates in my mind—and it is very important that one should not simply fix one's glance on the pavement of our present details. One should cast one's mind wider and more reflectively, as the noble Lord has done.
The noble Lord asked whether or not we had looked at other options. Yes. We considered the matter—this is a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, although it may not be a perfectly satisfactory answer to its recipient—and we came to the conclusion that to defer elections for a month and to set a firm date was the better, most prudent and wisest course. That is not capable of scientific analysis or defence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, it is an issue of a balance of judgment which we conscientiously made.
I recognise that there are alternatives. I do not believe—I entirely endorse what the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Scott, said—that it would have been prudent or responsible to have an open-ended postponement. First, that would have been deeply disheartening to those who are affected by the foot and mouth outbreak—not just farmers but all those who are engaged in the industry of tourism, which is so critically important to the economy and to the life of the nation. To continue the uncertainty would have been a deeply irresponsible course to take. That is the conclusion that we came to, having. of course, considered the possible options.
I have dealt with the question of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, deployed his ammunition on a much wider front and I hope that I have dealt with his queries on the basis that they are general ones. They are important, but they relate to a wider issue and are not specific to this debate.
I am familiar with the argument about fixed terms. In my experience it is normally deployed by opposition parties and is indignantly rejected by those in

953
government—as we happily are at present. That is not a perfectly purist approach to constitutional matters, but it seems to be the experience of us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked why the pending by-election in Islington was being postponed. The answer is that we have to treat Greater London as a single entity. It certainly surprised me to learn that there are over 380 farms in London, including over 100 where livestock are kept.
The noble Lord asked about the inspection of nomination papers and consents. Again, I hope that that will be included in the compendious reply. The noble Lord nods. I am most grateful to him for his courtesy in indicating that he is content with that.
The noble Lord also asked a specific question about postal votes; namely, where is the proposition to be found in the Bill that postal votes for 3rd May will be transferred to 7th June? The Bill is not required to make that point explicit. Those who have applied for a postal vote for 3rd May will be entitled to use it on 7th June, because it will be for the same election, although that election has been postponed.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, invited my answer to the question: which version of the electoral register will apply to nomination papers; will there be a new version of the principal areas rule? The Bill provides that any nomination that was valid for 3rd May on the basis of the register then in force will be valid for 7th June. My advice is that a new version of the principal areas rule is not required.
A question was posed about the census. Census takers working in the countryside have been instructed to respect all appropriate restrictions and to respect the wishes of the farming community. Arrangements on a practical basis will be made specific to the census rather than to participation in an election.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked about the closing date for nominations on 10th May. It is based on the normal election timetable. I did not know this, but I am happy to share with the House my newly acquired knowledge that 10th May is the 19th working day before polling day and, working backwards, one gets that terminal.
The noble Viscount asked why we intend to compensate only independents. The decision was the result of consultation with all the main opposition parties. Although that is not binding on the noble Viscount himself, it was agreed by representatives of his party.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for addressing the point. I was not concerned with whether or not that should be done. My point related to whether there was a danger of discriminatory practice in compensating some and not others.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a fair question. My answer is that not all discrimination is wrong, providing that it is discreet and justifiable—and approved by the Conservative Party.
954
We have yet to finalise the details of the scheme to compensate local authorities for additional electoral expenditure. What we are doing is meeting additional legitimate expenditure consequential—I stress this point—to the postponement, and not expenditure which may derive from other consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak. I hope that we shall be able to publicise the details before 7th June.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked about annual meetings. They will take place. I recognise the logistical and practical difficulties specified by the noble Lord; they cannot be argued against. The meetings will take place with reference to the election date. So if the election date is postponed, the period in which the annual meeting is to be held will similarly be postponed. We shall use the order-making power in Clause 7 to delay the timing of annual meetings of police and fire authorities.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked a number of questions about Northern Ireland. As always, my noble friend speaks with authority about issues that have engaged him for so long. We believe that there is no reason for Northern Ireland to remain separate in its arrangements. Northern Ireland is presently unable to hold local elections coincident with a general election. The Bill contains a provision allowing it to hold local elections and a general election on the same day.
Your Lordships have assured me, on the basis of the ex cathedra pronouncements in the Sun, that the general election will take place on 7th June. Obviously, I always take on board what is told to me by your Lordships, particularly when it comes from the Sun. I do not know when the general election will be held. I hope that it will be early, so that we shall lay aside any questions of the identity of the next government. But I simply do not know. It is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister's good judgment. Speaking of which—the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is not in his place but he was present earlier—it is worth re-reading a stable companion of the Sun, which is bigger in format and has fewer pictures and longer words; namely, The Times. I can safely paraphrase an extract from the noble Lord's article because, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, he is not here to correct me. He said that if matters were postponed from the anticipated day of 3rd May, that would confirm to him that the Prime Minister was the decent man he had hoped he was four years ago. I leave your Lordships with that thought.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked about the combined poll. Statistically, the number of spoilt ballot papers in Scotland in 1999 was comparable to the number in an ordinary election in the United

955
Kingdom. The noble Baroness spoke about colours. None of the ballot papers ought to be bright or cheerful in colour, because that would inevitably induce all those voting to vote for the Labour Party. If they were gloomy and funereal, I suppose that would attract the Conservative element such as it presently remains.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish. This is too good to miss—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, said on one occasion, "I am really enjoying this". I should not have said that because it was immediately on her resignation; so I hope that history is not about to repeat itself.
Ballot papers can be colour-coded—white and possibly lilac. They should not cause the same confusion as I accept may have occurred on the previous occasion. If—I am told magisterially—someone puts the wrong paper in the wrong box, it will be reconciled to the correct box before the count.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the statement was in the Bill. It is quite correct, and that was done. The question of spoilt ballot papers is not completely relevant. The question is whether people voted for someone for whom they did not mean to vote—that is, they voted for one of the bodies because they believed they had to vote in the same way for both. That was my question. That needs to be made plain somewhere, not necessarily in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly take on board that suggestion. If it can be done without legislative means, plainly it needs to be looked at carefully.
I have only a few seconds more because I am in the 20th minute of my response. I simply want to repeat the fact that this has been a high-quality debate. The briefing note always tells one to say that, and your Lordships will know that I never do. It was a very good debate. It would be helpful to those who sometimes scoff at the nature of the parliamentary process and do not recognise the virtue and continuing value of this House if they were to read it. What was lacking—or almost lacking—was a partisan approach to what we all know is a national problem. It is not of our choosing or of our making. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Railtrack
6.9 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, in the light of recent events and of public opinion, to nationalise Railtrack.
956
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Railways Act 1993 broke British Rail into 100 companies and sold them off. Originally, Railtrack was to be kept in state ownership, but that, too, was sold in 1996 for about £2 billion. The privatised rail companies paid about £5 billion for the whole of BR at privatisation—that is, all the real estate, rolling stock, and so on. They have now received more than that in subsidy, so the railways were effectively given away.
However, a number of people were opposed to such developments at the time: the Green Party objected to rail privatisation and the fragmentation of the industry; the Labour Party also objected to it. Consensus for Change—the Labour Party's transport strategy for the 21st century—published in 1996, said:
"The Labour Party is deeply opposed to rail privatisation, as is the British public. It is clear to all serious analysts that (Conservative) government policy is driven by an ideological commitment to privatisation at any price, rather than a proper consideration of the national interest and the country's long-term transport needs. Labour is committed to a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway.
"The most outrageous sale is that of Railtrack. When the (Conservative) government brought the railways Bill to the House of Commons it promised that Railtrack would remain a publicly owned company 'for the foreseeable future'.
"On coming to office Labour will set in place a structured programme to return the railways to an integrated whole.
"As well as the powers of regulation and of subsidy, a Labour government will use its powers to acquire ownership of Railtrack".
That was the Labour Party view just five years ago. It is still the view of the Green Party, which confirmed its policy of taking the railways back into public ownership at its spring conference last month.
Rail privatisation has been a dismal failure. Railtrack has failed to maintain the network or to improve it. Safety and performance have both declined. The terrible accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield were caused by faults with the track and signalling, which are the responsibility of Railtrack. There was chaos after Hatfield, when Railtrack realised that it did not know the state of its network because it subcontracts inspection and maintenance work. It then imposed 1,000 speed restrictions. Timetables were abandoned, fewer trains ran; and those that did run were severely delayed. Even now, six months later, some services are still not back to normal. Sir Alastair Morton, the chair of the Strategic Rail Authority, described it as "a nervous breakdown" for the railways.
Performance was falling before the Hatfield accident. The latest edition of On Track, Rail Performance Trends published by the SRA compares the first half of 2000–01 with the first half of'1999–2000. The performance of 22 train operating companies declined, two stayed the same and only one improved. The latest figures for October to December 2000 show a 20 per cent fall in performance post Hatfield, and a record number of complaints. Today we heard the announcement regarding the Virgin rail price rises.
The number of broken rails has increased in the past two years, and Railtrack has failed to expand the network or increase its capacity to meet increased

957
demand. Rail services, both passenger and freight, have collapsed. People and goods are transferring to other less safe and more environmentally damaging modes of transport, such as road and air.
The sixth report of the Commons Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which was published on 29th March of this year, concluded that,
"the system of managing contractors who carry out maintenance and renewal work on the railway through the system of 'cascaded safety cases' has been shown to have utterly failed. It is not just the system that has failed: Railtrack's management of its contractors has been woeful … Railtrack told us that the objective of privatisation was `to maximise proceeds to the Treasury and minimise future subsidy requirements … There was no vision of the size and type of railway the country needed'.
The committee continued:
"The Rail Regulator agreed with Railtrack's assessment. He told us that the 'ill-thought through' financial framework put in place at the time of privatisation was deficient, did little to promote investment, and that there was 'no specification of what Railtrack had to do for the access charges which it receives and very little was done … to encourage the making of investment".
I think we can conclude that members of that committee thought that the present system was unsatisfactory.
Railtrack is not a conventional plc; it is a monopoly. It supplies an essential service so it cannot be allowed to cease operating. The Government will bail it out and the Stock Exchange knows this. Until last week the share price was artificially buoyed up by this knowledge. Privatisation was meant to transfer the financial risk, as well as the profit, to the private sector. However, it has not worked out that way. The private sector has been quite happy to take the profits in the form of dividends, share options and high salaries. But whenever there are financial losses it comes to the Government with it begging bowl and asks to be bailed out, as happened with the West Coast route modernisation and, again, this week for network maintenance.
The Transport Act 2000 set up the Strategic Rail Authority, which came into formal existence on 1st February of this year. However, it had been operating as a shadow authority since 1999. It has not yet produced a strategy; it has just produced a strategic agenda. The actual strategic plan is to follow in the autumn. The Government published the 10-year transport plan last year. This included £60 billion of investment in rail of which £26 billion is to come from the Government. Most of that will end up with Railtrack, either directly or indirectly via the train operating companies.
At the Institute for Public Policy Research's Rail Renaissance conference in February, the Minister who is to respond to this debate, Sir Alastair Morton, the chair of the SRA, and Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator, all spoke of a consensus that the railways should not be re-structured, and said that we should work within the present system. It took the Green Party's transport speaker, Mr Alan Francis, to point out that that consensus did not extend to rail passengers—the vast majority of whom wanted the
958
railways to be renationalised. While many in the audience agreed with Mr Francis, he was then rounded on by Mr Winsor who claimed that the services that the public wants can be more effectively operated in the public interest by the private sector. If that is so, why has it not happened over the past five years?
A privatised Railtrack achieves the worst of both worlds: it is neither accountable to the public as a public rail service should be, nor is it delivering better standards in the way that privatised services are supposed to do in theory. Rail privatisation was Thatcherite dogma take to extremes. New Labour has lacked the courage to renationalise, yet has also failed to ensure the proper standards of service. General public opinion is now very much in favour of renationalisation, as evidenced by public polls and by the tabling of an Early Day Motion in another place.
Moreover, the sixth report of the Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which was published last week, also said:
"Given that the previous means of managing maintenance and renewal contractors has failed, we strongly recommend that Railtrack take over direct responsibility for inspecting the network".
The committee also recommended that the public should have a stake in Railtrack in exchange for its investment. The City's reaction to Monday's imposition of a director to represent the public interest on the Railtrack board shows that partial renationalisation is not a realistic option. Railtrack has either to be in the private sector or in the public sector; it cannot be in both.
The cost of renationalisation would be in the region of £2.5 billion, which could be phased in over a number of years by the issue of bonds. Railtrack is being given £3.5 billion just to upgrade the West Coast Main Line, why not pay the extra and get the whole lot?
There are a number of models that could be used to bring back Railtrack into public ownership. In the longer term as passenger franchises expire they could be brought back into the public sector at no cost. Ultimately the rolling stock could also be brought back. That would cost in the region of £2 billion to £3 billion. Meanwhile the situation would be a bit like that with London buses. The infrastructure would be publicly owned with operation under the control of a public authority.
The Green Party has drafted a short Bill to allow the Government to take Railtrack back into public ownership. Because it involves expenditure on compensation for shareholders I was advised by the Clerks that only a government Minister can put it forward in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who will reply to the debate will volunteer one of his colleagues to do so and he will take charge of it when it comes to this House.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and as adviser to Adtranz.

959
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is certainly right to say that the industry is still in a bad way after the Hatfield crash. Rail freight is taking longer to reach its destination and costs are up. Many passenger services are still not running to time. The problem is that the growth in the 10-year plan of 80 and 50 per cent respectively is predicated on a reliable infrastructure. We do not have that and, sadly, the time that is being taken to get back to what might be called reliability seems to become ever longer. I believe that the industry has lost confidence in Railtrack. That in turn puts at risk the private finance in the trains, stations and terminals on which the 10-year plan is largely based.
There has been good news recently. The Department of Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority made some excellent announcements this week which included more money for Railtrack and a new budget. In that connection I refer to the periodic review of freight and the regulator's conclusions which came out today. They have also persuaded Railtrack to stick to running the network and leave all new enhancements to other organisations. One might say that they have asked Railtrack to stick to its knitting and get the knitting right. The rail regulator has reduced the freight access charges by 50 per cent. That is very welcome. He is also tightening up various new licence conditions which I think will make Railtrack perform much more effectively. That is in addition to the provisions in the Transport Act and the Competition Act.
However, it is clear that Railtrack has failed in its primary duty to operate and maintain the network. In fact, it does not even know what it owns and operates in the network. I am concerned that it has taken the Hatfield crash and seven years of operation to persuade successive Ministers, OPRAF (as it then was), the SRA and regulators of the problems that have arisen from the privatisation of Railtrack.
I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. It might be good to put the assets that we all once owned as taxpayers back into the public sector, but I believe that the problem is one of management. I do not think that one can necessarily argue that a nationalised industry is any more efficient, or even less efficient, than one in the private sector. We can all mention examples—we have done so on many occasions in the Chamber—of different organisations which should or should not be in the private or public sectors. As I say, I believe that the problem is one of management.
When Gerald Corbett was chief executive of Railtrack he used to say that he had much too much to do and was much too busy. I refer to a failure on the part of the shareholders. Apparently they have not until recently been concerned about the low share price. I believe that the share price is well below £5 today. However, they may be concerned about the tougher regulatory regime of the rail regulator and the SRA.
One has to ask whether it would be so awful if Railtrack "went bust". The shareholders would suffer, but would the network? That is a question we must
960
ask. There is the possibility in the Transport Act for the SRA to take over Railtrack, or, alternatively, one or more companies could buy it as a going concern. Several noble Lords have said in the past that they thought that the rail regulator had a duty to keep Railtrack solvent. The Railways Act 1993 states that the regulator has a duty,
"to act in a manner which he considers will not render it unduly difficult for persons who are holders of network licences to finance any activities".
Railtrack is a holder of a network licence. In my judgment that does not state that the regulator has to keep those activities alive; he just has to take them into account. I believe that Railtrack cannot finance those few activities which the Government are not funding due to poor management and a lack of responsibility towards its shareholders.
Perhaps it would be better to split Railtrack into several zonal plcs—as I have suggested before—as that would constitute smaller companies that were easier to manage. 1 am told that that would not require legislation. The "frontier" effects between the zones or the companies would certainly not be any worse than they are at the moment. They are not very good at the moment. In not providing a network fit to fulfil its purpose I believe that Railtrack's board and management are at fault. They are accountable to their shareholders. They are also adversely affecting the private sector finance of the other parts of the network.
I am pleased that the Transport Act, the Competition Act and the rail regulator are tightening the regime but I hope that the SRA will also appreciate the strategic need to ensure that Railtrack delivers, If that causes Railtrack's shareholders to take action before the share price falls to 50p, or whatever it is likely to be, so be it. If not, the SRA and the rail regulator will have to tighten the screw still further. I believe that it is possible to manage rail infrastructure reliably, effectively and at reasonable cost, as many railway administrations have shown. and are showing, around the world.
I conclude by emphasising that in my view the transport plan, which I think is a fantastic plan that must be delivered, is at risk unless and until we have in place a network that operates reliably seven days a week and 24 hours a day. I believe that the present structure can deliver that but that Railtrack shareholders will probably have to suffer a great deal more before that happens. I only hope that that occurs rather more quickly than it has done in the past seven years.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am still a member of the Strategic Rail Authority. However, I speak tonight on my own behalf and I say categorically that I do not speak with the support of the Strategic Rail Authority.
As a professional railway manager, I believe that the idea that one can run a railway with someone running the trains and someone else managing the track is quite foreign to the proper operation of a railway. The origin

961
of the idea was first formed in European Directive 91/440 which stated that railway undertakings should have a separate accounting mechanism for their infrastructure, not a separate management. But somehow in Britain that got translated into the idea that we should divide the two. Most of our European colleagues are incredulous at the system we try to operate in this country.
I am pleased to note that there are now two Peers on the Conservative Benches. I refer to the book, The Right Lines, by Kenneth Irvine, whom I can only describe as a failed railwayman. He proposes a separate infrastructure business. He has all kinds of strange ideas. He believes, for example, that there can be much competition on the railways and that one can turn up at Waterloo Station and there will be a red train, a blue train and a green train going to Woking and one can choose which train to catch according to which is most comfortable. That is quite foreign to the idea of organising a railway. One cannot run a railway on the basis of many different operators with equipment of different specifications operating a competitive service.
The original aim was not to privatise Railtrack but to keep it in the public sector. However, that idea was swept away because at that stage many other network industries had been privatised, such as electricity, gas and water. People asked why the railways could not be privatised also. However, if one is selling water, gas or electricity, one sells a homogenous product. Several people can put the same stuff into the pipeline and the same stuff emerges from the other end of the pipeline and can be metered. The problem with railways is that it is the poor passenger who gets stuffed into the pipeline—and often a very poor quality pipeline. They also all have different needs, which are not easily discriminated by the pipeline system through which they tend to get pushed.
Let me deal with a few myths about the present railway system. The first is that the maintenance problems experienced by the railways somehow had their genesis under British Rail. BR was kept very short of money, but I assure that House that BR's professional engineering standards could not possibly have permitted the deterioration in the network that we have seen. The problems would have been stopped much sooner. In any event, speed restrictions would have been put in place. The professional integrity of all those involved, from the supervisors on the track through to the divisional engineers, was such that the situation could not have arisen.
The second myth is that the recent growth in passengers has been conjured up by the private companies. The last time that the economy turned up as it has done under the present Government—for which they are entitled to a great deal of credit—carryings on the railway rose steeply. Carryings on the railway are very susceptible to the working of the trade cycle.
The third myth was that 20 per cent of the costs could be taken out of the industry, which would be a bonus for shareholders, and that at the time of the
962
regulatory review it would be possible for the regulator to pass those benefits on to passengers. In fact, BR had been screwed down so tightly by successive governments that there was not 20 per cent to be got out of the costs, whereas there were opportunities for economy in gas, water and electricity, which were monopoly industries that had not been pushed so hard by government.
The fourth myth was about open access, which has all but disappeared from the lexicon of people addressing the industry.
The rolling stock arrangements have been successful. On this point 1 disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It is perfectly feasible for rolling stock to be leased. That is the common way of buying aircraft and buses. I am not sure that people lease ships, but they are mobile assets that generally have many substitute uses. The previous government's stubbornness in not allowing leasing in 1993, when begged to do so by the then British Railways Board, led to the closing down of most of the British railway construction industry.
Railtrack has been sliding backwards, as other noble Lords have said. It has had advice from American consultants on how to make quick economies to keep the share price up. John Kay wrote a good article in yesterday's Financial Times warning against that practice and the very short-term gains that it brings. He compared Railtrack with Marks and Spencer. The article is well worth reading.
We have had a generous regulatory review. We have moved forward £1.5 billion of funding to assist Railtrack. The post-Hatfield review will cost a lot, because, while the shareholders will take their hit for some of the compensation, a huge programme of remedial works is necessary. Railtrack has withdrawn from its programme of enhancements and it has the Cullen report to deal with.
The cost of such work schemes is escalating rapidly. Railtrack does not take risks or provide a robust system. It is a monopoly, which is extraordinarily difficult to regulate when there are no comparators, and it is distant from the end customers. The Government should consider whether we need two regulators—the SRA and the Office of the Rail Regulator, which are both effectively dispensing government funds.
I come back to where I started. I honestly believe that very soon—perhaps in the refranchising process—we shall put the management of the operation and maintenance of the track back together with the train companies to form proper companies that can answer to their customers for the services that they deliver.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, professionally, I teach public policy, among other things. One of the things that we try to get students to understand is that there are different appropriate frameworks for different areas of public policy. One of the principles

963
of those who teach public policy now is that whatever works best is the framework that is needed—a very new Labour principle.
We also teach that there is a range of possibilities for the funding. ownership and regulation of natural monopolies. Over the past 15 years we have seen the relatively successful privatisation of electricity, gas and water, each of which was done in a different way. In the water industry we have discovered that, when there are very long-term investments, such as reservoirs, there is often a case for non-profit trusts rather than straightforward shareholder-based companies as the basis of operation. A number of water companies have argued for that. Each method builds in different patterns of incentives, which affect the behaviour of the managers and their customers.
Railtrack is in a different category from electricity, gas and water. The pattern of incentives built in to the structure has proved perverse because of the unavoidable antagonism between Railtrack and the train operating companies and because of the relationship between Railtrack and its far too many contractors, in which the incentive is to save on costs rather than to promote safety. In a Civil Service magazine that I received today, I came across a quote from evidence given to the Cullen inquiry, which said that in a "fragmented and organisationally incoherent" industry, creating a safety culture across the whole industry workforce was "simply not obtainable". That expressed better than I could the perverse incentives that are built in.
Secondly, unlike electricity and gas, the rail industry will clearly be dependent for many years on public subsidy for investment. That makes it harder and more expensive to raise additional funds on private markets. Being dependent on public subsidy raises some large questions about accountability. I work in the higher education sector. As ever more detailed inspections by public agencies are imposed on us, we are told that they are justified by the need to provide detailed accountability for public expenditure. I am amazed that similar principles are not imposed on Railtrack. For example, much of the track inspection is left to private contractors. I find the Treasury's ideology on the issue extraordinary. It has not moved on very far in the past 20 years. The problem of accountability is fundamental. Public money is being given as a subsidy to a private company without clear oversight.
Lastly, the system was designed in a hurry by the Conservatives to cope with decline. Happily, we have found that, rather than decline, we are dealing with the problems of expansion. I live in Yorkshire at the end of the Leeds-Carlisle railway line, much of which was due to be closed 15 years ago but which is now being rapidly expanded to carry additional traffic. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, knows, I am an active member and now a shareholder—I must declare that interest—of the Wensleydale railway company, which we hope will enable us to reopen another railway line. I also use the East Coast Main Line—even Leeds railway station on occasions—so I
964
have an active interest in the further expansion and upgrading of the British railways system to cope with the expansion of traffic.
It is clear that the current structures do not allow for or promote the investment or expansion that we need. For those reasons, they need to be fundamentally changed. The current structure is wrong. Nationalisation may not be the answer, but there is a range of other toolkits—to use the academic expression—such as non-profit trusts and public/private partnerships, which the Government have accepted in other areas. It is time they tried them.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for many in this House in welcoming the Government's announcement on Monday that they will bring forward some £1.5 billion in payments to Railtrack. That should help the company's ability to meet the needs of the existing rail network. I, for one, take it as a sign that the Government are committed to getting the railway industry back into proper shape and to providing passengers with an improved service.
I agree with other noble Lords that Railtrack has a vital part to play in modernising the railway system. However, it is clear that it needs to concentrate more than it has done in the past on its basic job—that is, making the existing railway network better and safer. I was struck by one quotation that I read earlier this week:
"Railtrack has in the past been guilty of over-promising and under-delivering, particularly to its customers".
Those are the words of Steve Marshall, Railtrack's Chief Executive. I suspect that few in this House would disagree with him.
However, words on their own are not enough, and action is required if passenger confidence is to be repaired. That is why I welcome not only the monetary elements of Monday's announcements, important though they are; the non-monetary elements of the package are as, if not more, important.
First, Railtrack must focus on its core responsibility for the existing network and on meeting the needs of the train operators. At times in the early days, I formed the impression that Railtrack was a property company rather than a rail track company. It had poor project management skills and at one time appeared to be placing profits before investment.
Now, it will no longer have a monopoly on the major projects required to enhance the network as part of the 10-Year Plan. I welcome the fact that other companies can now join in with new public/private partnerships to take forward those projects, starting with the upgrade of the East Coast Main Line, to which—here, I declare an interest as a regular user—I look forward very warmly. Greater concentration on the stewardship of its existing assets will assist Railtrack to achieve more effective operation. maintenance and renewal of the network.
As I understand it, the Statement of Principles agreed between the Government and Railtrack sets out and formalises the relationship between the two

965
parties. The statement recognises Railtrack's unique role as a public company which provides an important public service and attracts public funding. Given that background, Railtrack has agreed to appoint a non-executive director to its main board with a specific remit to provide a powerful public and consumer voice on the board.
I hope that the first part of Railtrack's 2001 network management statement—due, I believe, in May and covering the existing railway—will address its asset stewardship obligations. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the statement will make clear how the company will deliver effective management of contracted-out work, how it will deliver consistency and customer focus across its activities, and how it will reinforce its engineering skills base.
It is important that all moneys brought forward are spent on the railway industry. Noble Lords will have noted that Railtrack capitalisation is now down to £2.5 billion. That puts into context the bringing forward of a further £1.5 billion in public funds. Clearly it is important that Railtrack uses that money by investing it in the railway system and that it does not use it for the immediate or shorter-term benefit of shareholders.
I am in no doubt that many of the problems that we have seen in recent years can be laid at three doors. First, chronic under-investment in the railway industry took place under successive Conservative governments in the 1980s and 1990s. Under nationalisation, there was also a lack of incentives for better performance.
Secondly, the railway industry was restructured in the mid-1990s in a rushed and disastrous manner and then privatised. It was restructured into 25 train operating companies, five freight operators, three rolling-stock leasing companies, 19 maintenance suppliers and Railtrack.
Thirdly, as I said earlier, since privatisation, Railtrack has appeared at times to be driven by its property interests and, at other times, to be driven first and foremost by the desire to make profits rather than to invest. It has shown lamentable project management and management skills. Operationally, it has been poor at its job.
However, I do not conclude that the answer is to return to nationalisation. I believe that that type of gut reaction takes us nowhere. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the railway industry now needs a period of stability. I believe that the Government are addressing the right issues: they are increasing investment in the rail industry with some £30 billion over the next 10 years; they are addressing the question of strong project management and construction skills; and they are bringing new companies into public/private partnerships to deal with future major projects. Railtrack can now concentrate on its core business of looking after its existing network and doing that properly and efficiently.
966
The industry now needs a period of certainty and stability in order to get things right. If it does not do so, I shall be among the first to say that further change must take place. However, let us now get investment into the railway industry; let it have a period of stability; and let it show collectively that it can meet the challenge of providing a good public transport service.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this debate. I profess to feeling a certain degree of intimidation—or perhaps not intimidation, but something similar—at the professional and academic expertise which certainly my noble friends who sit in front of me have brought to this debate.
I started my life-long interest in railways approximately 50 years ago when, one Christmas, I received a first edition of Thomas the Tank Engine in a parcel from Santa Claus. As a book dealer, I very much regret that I do not still own that first edition. My mother gave it away to the local hospital with a load of Eagle annuals and other things, which I also regret I no longer own.
From a childhood enlivened by the Reverend W Awdry's books, I remember the wonderful character of the Fat Controller. He was a bureaucrat; he was a man with a hat; and he was derided by the people who really ran the railway—who, in those stories, were the engines—for not knowing much about rail engineering. It sounds a little like Railtrack.
Nowadays, we have the Rail Regulator; we have the Strategic Rail Authority and its chairman; we have Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, which I believe is now part of the Health and Safety Executive; we have the Secretary of State; we have Railtrack and its own Fat Controller; we have the train operating companies with all their Fat Controllers, including the rail freight companies; and, of course—a matter about which we should be very pleased in your Lordships' House—we have the Minister. I do not by any means suggest that the Minister is a Fat Controller; he is far too lean and hungry.
However, a question that people ask time and time again in relation to the railway industry in this country is: who is the Fat Controller? Who is in charge? Where does the buck stop? The truth is that no one knows. Until that matter is sorted out, or, at least, until our incredibly fragmented railway system is de-fragmented to some degree, I do not believe that we shall make a great deal of progress.
At the time of rail nationalisation—I am sorry. I mean rail privatisation; I do not remember making speeches at the time of rail nationalisation as I was reading Thomas the Tank Engine then—I can remember making a speech in another place altogether: Lancashire County Council. During that speech I asked how long it would be before one heard announcements by the train operating companies saying, "Hello, this is Sharon, your assistant passenger supervisor. We are very sorry that this train is delayed by half an hour (or two hours). Unfortunately, this is

967
due to the incompetence of Railtrack, which is responsible for looking after the track and signals and can't do it very well".
At that time, people said that I was going over the top. However, since then, over several years Railtrack has engaged in squeezing the assets and the staff of the railway industry in the short-term interests of its shareholders, including its directors. That is a fair description of what has happened. Lo and behold, I now find that the train operating companies and Railtrack are indeed in open warfare. My prediction those many years ago has come true.
Today's Independent quotes Mr Chris Green, who is one of the more respected railway managers in this country and who is now chief executive of Virgin Trains. I regard that as a hopeful feature of today's railway system. He is also a senior official with the Association of Train Operating Companies. In his attempt to defend the indefensible—Virgin's announcement of a 10 per cent increase in rail fares—he is quoted as saying:
"Before the Hatfield disaster last October the industry was on target for another year of growth and investment. By November the rail network had been decimated by its own foot-and-mouth disease in the shape of 500 emergency speed restrictions, which wiped out four years of growth in four weeks".
Virgin and some other train operating companies are reported to be about to take Railtrack to court over an argument about compensation for the losses that they have suffered since Hatfield. We have a rail system that is fragmented and in which the fragmented elements are taking each other to court. That is a recipe for disaster.
The public are aware that Railtrack's share value has gone down by 30 per cent or 35 per cent during the past three days—I do not know what happened today—and that its value is rapidly approaching £2 billion or less. It is said to have physical assets worth about —5 billion, although I am not sure how anyone knows that. Railtrack clearly does not know exactly what its assets are—its asset database is inadequate, to put it mildly.
The Government are bailing out Railtrack in the short term with £1.5 billion. People ask, quite reasonably, why the Government are giving that money to a private sector firm that will simply return the money to its shareholders when it starts to make a profit again.
I accept, as noble Lords have already said, that the problem may not be one of ownership per se. However, the need for profit is at the heart of the problem. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire discussed the fact that a series of options is available, ranging from the use of trusts to the establishment of a non-profit making company; other options are also involved. I do not consider myself to be an expert in that regard.
Simply putting a public interest director on Railtrack's board is not an answer to the problem. I do not know who will be appointed but I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is poised to jump up. I read in the newspaper that he might be
968
appointed. I notice that he is shaking his head—he is very wise. If he has been offered the post and has already turned it down, he is an even wiser person. The position will be a poisoned chalice. All the Fat Controllers in the fragmented railway industry, Government Ministers and Railtrack's directors will pass the buck to that person and ensure that next time the railways fall to bits, he will have to answer on television, in newspapers and elsewhere.
Whatever the answer in this context, we have to consider re-nationalising Railtrack or making it a nonprofit making organisation with clear duties that is accountable to the public, through Parliament and the government, and to its customers—that is, the train operating companies, including the freight companies. Such solutions will have to be considered because the Government's present approach is simply to pour more and more taxpayers' money into a company that is responsible to its shareholders.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I had intended to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on his immaculate sense of timing. He initiated this debate on the day that the media are full of reports about plans by Virgin to increase fares, apparently by 9.8 per cent from next month. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, reminded us, that announcement was accompanied by a comment from Chris Green, who said that the increase was a direct consequence of Railtrack's refusal to compensate the train operating companies adequately for the delays caused by the speed restrictions that have been imposed since the Hatfield crash.
Then it occurred to me that scarcely a day has passed since the Hatfield crash in which there has not been critical press comment of Railtrack's performance. Consider the leader in today's Guardian, which states:
"Rail privatisation, predictably, has turned out to be an operational disaster. But it is also turning into a serious financial disaster, since neither Railtrack nor the operating companies can reconcile the requirement to invest heavily to build a modern railway (such as continental countries have enjoyed for years) with the need to make profits and dividends for shareholders".
None of that comes as a surprise to those of us who worked in the industry before privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I share the distinction of having that on our CVs. It was apparent at the time of privatisation that a political agenda was driving the timetable. The desperation of getting the whole industry irreversibly into the private sector before the 1997 election overrode every other consideration, including considerations about what made sense in strategic transport terms, about whether the taxpayer would get value for money and about whether passengers had any hope of getting a better deal.
The Public Accounts Committee in another place concluded in August last year that:
"Railtrack's licence at privatisation contained serious shortcomings because of haste in privatising Railtrack and, as a result, passengers have seen poorer track quality, weak contracts between Railtrack and train operators, and possibly unjustified

969
performance bonuses to Railtrack. We are concerned that this haste contributed to serious deficiencies in the subsequent regulatory regime".
That report came out just two months before the Hatfield crash. It also pointed out that when in 1994 the then Department of Transport licensed Railtrack to operate the network, the intention was that the company would remain in the public sector for at least some time. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made that point. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raises is both pertinent and timely.
Had things remained as they were during the first years after privatisation, when Railtrack was left to behave as it wished—it was largely unaccountable, insensitive to the needs of passengers and train operators alike, careless in its observance of its licence obligations and able to abuse its monopoly position—and when the regulator was forced to be little more than a frustrated bystander, one could understand how re-nationalisation could be seen as the only way out of the mess, despite the further upheaval that that would create. Thus far I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
However, things have changed. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston and the Deputy Prime Minister deserve great credit for at last getting a grip on those incredibly difficult issues, particularly in relation to the way in which Railtrack is regulated. The new Rail Regulator, Mr Tom Winsor, also deserves such credit.
The new agenda for Railtrack that was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday was discussed by my noble friend Lord Woolmer. It attached strict conditions, including more accountability and tougher regulation in the public interest in return for the accelerated payment to the company of £1.5 billion, which was due to Railtrack under the rail regulator's review of its access charges. That establishes the crucial elements of the financial structure that was needed by the rail industry to maintain the momentum of the Government's 10-year plan for transport.
Central to the success of that policy is the role of the regulator. He has to monitor Railtrack's performance regime, network stewardship and investment plans. He knows that Railtrack must meet the needs and expectations of the public and the industry by treating their public interest obligations as seriously as it treats its commercial responsibilities. He and the Government will be able to put pressure on the company to ensure that the network is maintained, renewed and enhanced in a manner that meets the requirements of all its customers.
The Rail Regulator's role is that of an enforcer and of an architect—he has to build a regulatory structure that will give each player in the industry the right incentives to contribute to the growth of investment, which underpins the Government's integrated transport strategy. Indeed, he did that today with his announcement of the 50 per cent cut in freight charges.
970
That will play a large part in helping the Government to meet their target of increasing freight carried by rail by 80 per cent.
The regulator is there to rectify the shortcomings that were built into the regulatory system during privatisation. He inherited a toolbox which was pretty well stocked, but many of the items in that box were covered in dust and cobwebs. He has got those items into working order and added to them as well.
His reform programme is nearing completion. He delivered an extended and rigorous periodic review and the problems, the potential solutions and improved incentives are now better defined for Railtrack than at any since privatisation. What matters is not who owns the assets but whether and to what extent those assets are operated in a way which promotes and protects the public interest.
It is therefore regrettable that Mr Winsor continues to be the target of unpleasant and ill-informed sniping by the Conservative transport spokesman in another place—I absolve absolutely those who have spoken on transport for the Conservatives in this House and indeed am looking forward to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who is making her debut on transport in this debate.
The new Transport Act has strengthened the powers available to the regulator, and he must keep up the pressure on Railtrack to specify clearly what it will deliver in terms of performance, stewardship of the network and investment. Surely it is more sensible to see how this new approach works out before we plunge into the turmoil of yet another reorganisation of our railways. It must be right to give the Government's attempt to create a partnership between the public and private sectors, backed by firm, independent regulation, a chance to see whether it can deliver a railway of which again we can be proud.
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we are all grateful for the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, with whom I remember campaigning many years ago and have known as a cherished colleague over those years. We have been lucky to hear some excellent speeches in the debate he provided for us tonight.
I am grateful also to those who have spoken from my Back Benches who have each, in their own way, added a particular apercu to our discussions. I am sorry, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to her new temporary responsibilities, that she is not supported by any Back-Bench speakers from the Tory Benches. That is a very strange omission.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave us a vivid account of the things that have gone wrong with the railway. I am sure most of us agree with many of his criticisms. One of the basic flaws in the system is contained in the contradictory role of the Rail Regulator. In that regard I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The Rail Regulator is required, under the rail privatisation Act, to maintain Railtrack's abilities to finance its

971
functions. But the regulator also has the power and duty to punish breaches of Railtrack's licence conditions with fines. As a result, in effect, the taxpayer is continually being asked to pay the company's fines because more and more money is drawn into Railtrack by various means. Otherwise Railtrack could be rendered unable to carry out the work which the Strategic Rail Authority requires it to undertake.
Again, the reduced freight access charges are to be welcomed from the point of view of public policy. But what will he the effect on Railtrack's finances? Will it be tempted not to increase the availability of track because it is not going to obtain enough money for it? There are a whole lot of arguments built into these matters of finance.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I can answer that question. The press release from the regulator says,
"The reduction in charges does not affect Railtrack because the lower revenues will be made up by higher subventions from public funds. At the least, this change is cost-neutral to Railtrack, and it has the upside of higher freight volumes and therefore higher revenues in the longer term".
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord has just made my point. My point was that the deficits in Railtrack are being made up from the public purse.
Moreover, Railtrack's proposals for major improvements, such as the West Coast Main Line and Thameslink, are progressing at a snail's pace, whereas the costs are rising dramatically—in the case of the West Coast Main Line by nearly three times from £2.5 billion to £6 billion. That must put into doubt its ability, without even more increases in funding, to implement what are likely to be the Cullen recommendations.
It is also a question of whether we are going to get value from the money that the public puts in for the work that needs to be done in the public interest. At the time of privatisation Liberal Democrats wanted to retain Railtrack within the public sector, which would have prevented some of the current problems. In particular, it might have avoided the loss of robust management and maintenance systems for the track and signals—something to which my noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred, and the lack of which has been so evident in the recent past.
Most of the railwaymen I have met would have preferred—if we were going to go ahead at all with privatisation—not to cut the cake in tiers, but to cut it in slices, retaining management of the track and of the services in the same hands. That would have avoided some of the difficulties in obtaining access to the track in order to carry out essential repairs at Hatfield—a matter dealt with extremely interestingly in a series of articles by Ian Jacks recently in the Guardian.
But re-nationalisation carries enormous problems with it. I shall speak about costs in a moment. There is of course a financial cost involved. But even more difficult is the disruption that it would cause. We
972
already have a demoralised industry. We already have a public who have completely lost confidence in that industry. To go through a whole legislative process of re-nationalisation would merely exacerbate those two dangerous aspects. We must remind ourselves that, for public policy reasons, we desperately need the railways to be successful.
What are the other alternatives? In February of this year the Liberal Democrats published a paper on its policies for safe, reliable and affordable rail travel. We proposed establishing a sustainable transport authority to take over the functions of both the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail regulator. We hoped that that would simplify the current bureaucratic system of incentives and penalties which tend to work against each other.
A second major proposal was to create a not-for-profit public interest Railtrack company to run the railway infrastructure. That has been referred to in various ways by several speakers. Such a company would not be restricted in the way that publicly-owned companies are—in my view, quite irrationally—from making appeals to the private sector. It would be likely to finance its work through bonds attracting a lower rate of interest. The sustainable transport authority would use its powers to reduce the number of franchises and to encourage Railtrack to pass its responsibilities for infrastructure renewal and repair to the major train operating companies.
The fourth proposal was to implement the expected recommendations of the Cullen inquiry and to create a new independent body to regulate rail safety together with a separate accident investigation body, modelled on the Air Accident Investigation Branch. Those two things would give passengers greater confidence that the whole safety issue is in independent hands.
The situation is moving extremely rapidly. There has been a new intervention by the Strategic Rail Authority. The question arises as to whether Railtrack would have the financial circumstances to make even our proposals viable. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggested that it may be an advantage to allow Railtrack to go bankrupt. I look forward, with some interest, to hearing the Minister's response to that suggestion, which has some tempting aspects.
The Government have also set their mind against taking Railtrack back into public ownership, while at the same time having to deal with the current situation. If the rail system cannot be publicly owned, somehow it must be made to work in its present form. Therefore, I have some questions for the Minister. How do they propose to re-establish a successful public sector influence over such an important public service and to make it work, not under an airy-fairy scheme, but in practice for freight and passenger customers? Given that no new franchises have yet been signed, will the Minister consider the option of some of the larger franchises, such as South West Trains or ScotRail, taking on responsibility for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the track and signalling as part of their new franchises. That would re-establish the link

973
between the wheel and the rail that so many people in the industry believe is an essential pre-requisite for a well-managed railway.
Today we have considered the catastrophic aftermath of a disastrous Conservative policy. It is clear that if this Labour Government prove unable to take charge of, to protect and to promote the public interest in the railways, the clamour for renationalisation, however mistaken, will become politically irresistible.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for introducing this debate. I appear on the Front Bench in a temporary role, but I am here and I thank noble Lords for noticing that I am here, even if more or less alone.
A number of serious contributions to this debate have been made by people who have considerable experience in the area of transport. I speak with some trepidation after the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Faulkner, all of whom have been at the coal-face of the industry and have knowledge of it.
Having listened most carefully to the debate, I do not believe that any of the speakers have demonstrated, or wanted to demonstrate, as the Question promulgates, any reason for or realistic prospect of the railways returning to their pre-privatisation days. Indeed, how could they, as even the most prejudiced views would have to accept that privatisation has brought, and has the prospect of bringing, singular advantages to the rail industry.
Although an interest in historic matters is not necessarily part of this Government's thinking, no sensible person who remembers the days prior to privatisation would in reality want to return to them. We must admit that trains were over-crowded, late and dirty. That was part of the daily routine. Casting my mind back, I remember frequent journeys to the North of England where to be 25 minutes late was to be on time and to be an hour late was par for the course.
Investment was not sufficient to bring about the modernisation and increased capacity which has become part and parcel of the present service; nor could it be because the only source was the Treasury. It is perhaps worth remembering that it was against the background of the previous 40 years—I am looking back to the 1950s—of disastrous reductions in passenger journeys (between 1952 and 1992 they fell from 17 per cent to just 5 per cent) and of a reduction in goods moved by rail (from 42 per cent to 7 per cent) that the Conservative government took the decision to undertake the privatisation programme.
Privatisation, or some of it, has been criticised, such as the creation of a number of separate companies to run different aspects of the service and, specifically, the creation of Railtrack. After decades of decline, privatisation has brought the opportunity of investment, modernisation and innovation,
974
particularly to the train operators. Passenger numbers have increased and, until the most recent problems with broken rails, disastrous rail crashes, the massive programme of repair instigated by the Government and carried out at break-neck speed, which is not yet completed, and which has brought endless disruption to rail journeys, performance was generally well above pre-privatisation days.
The fact that that work had to be carried out is no reason for suggesting that the railways should be renationalised. Even these days, when the Government appear to be able to conjure capital from the Treasury like a rabbit from a hat, the cost of doing so, as well as taking the whole burden of investment on to the tax revenues, which will surely cease to be inexhaustible, would relegate the railways to their previous capital-starved state.
The danger of all the mechanisms that the Government have now put in place, in particular in the recent Transport Act, by giving Ministers substantial new powers and creating the overarching Strategic Rail Authority, is that even without renationalisation, the initiative and ideas of the industry will be stifled, and private investment, which is so badly needed, will be jeopardised by over-centralisation.
The new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority has, if I may put it so, a good track record. However, it is in the travelling public's interest that he and that authority foster the companies that are bearing the burden of the cost of modernisation and providing the services.
The problems, if that does not happen, are amply demonstrated by the slump, referred to many times during the debate, in Railtrack's stock market position. To some extent, that will have been brought about by loss of investor confidence partly as a result of the opprobrium that has been heaped on its head from a variety of areas. Rather than undermining it further, the Government's priority should be to begin the process of restoring the self-confidence of the railway operators' management. The fact that Railtrack is sliding down the FTSE is of no benefit to anyone. The Government's urgent task should be to encourage it to focus on its role as an efficient network operator.
Apart from hard words, the Government have done little to date to dismantle or to reverse the privatised rail service. Even their oft announced rail modernisation fund of £7 million is designed to lever in greater amounts of private capital to enable the Strategic Rail Authority to engage in a long-term investment programme and to maximise the industry's ability to raise private capital.
In general, life moves on. Britain has progressed a long way from the disastrous days of a nationalised rail service, but progress and development is a continuous process. The absolute certainty is that even this Government are now unlikely to go backwards, although too much centralisation and external control could undermine the ability of privatisation to do its job.

975
However, the main attention of the debate has been concentrated on Railtrack. If managers do not manage and companies do not perform, that must be dealt with either by the board or by the more senior managers. The future of Railtrack and its ability to deal with what it has set out to do is truly in their hands. No organisation stands still. Ideas change as time moves on. Circumstances bring about change, and organisations need to adapt to those different situations.
I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber would say that the services are perfect or, at the moment, satisfactory. But apart from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I have heard no one suggest that renationalisation will improve the situation. What is required is to ensure that the operation and services are increasingly attractive to the private sector and decreasingly of day-by-day interest to Ministers.
7.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who spoke with obvious conviction. I thank other noble Lords for their equally well informed contributions. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to her short intrusion into transport.
I recognise the concerns so clearly articulated in the debate. It is unlikely that I shall be able to cover them all but any I fail to address I shall deal with in writing. We have achieved some progress since 1997 in some areas of the rail industry, but I agree that there is a great deal more to do. I shall set out how the Government will deliver that further growth and improved performance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned, there is a problem of growth. In some sense. it is a more positive challenge than the management of decline, which was the fate of many previous governments. One million more people go to work now than in 1997, which accounts for part of the pressure on our transport system.
Since Hatfield, several options for restructuring the management and operation of the national rail network have been put forward, particularly in relation to the future ownership of Railtrack. Indeed, last week the Transport Select Committee asked the Government to consider options which included taking Railtrack wholly back into public ownership.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in seeing difficulties with renationalisation. To do so would probably take a couple of years and involve potentially complex and controversial. primary legislation, during which time the industry would be effectively paralysed. The initial cost to taxpayers would comprise not only Railtrack's market capitalisation of around £2.5 billion—in
976
passing, I noticed that today its stock has risen by 5 per cent—but in recent times the market has sent its own harsh message to the board and the management of Railtrack. The taxpayers would also be expected to pick up the £4 billion of debt liabilities. None of that would buy additional rail investment; it would all go towards compensating shareholders and funding the company's debt.
Renationalisation would also involve the public sector in directly funding Railtrack investment into the future. The additional debt which the company currently plans to raise to finance its activities would become public sector borrowing.
I share the conviction of noble Lords that mistakes were made in the privatisation process. However, I accept that there have been some advantages of innovation and investment since privatisation. Since Hatfield, the Conservative architects of that process have admitted that they got it wrong. But after years of fragmentation and instability, surely the answer is not more upheaval. What we need now is evolution rather than revolution. In saying that, I echo the views of Sir Alistair Morton, chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. His views are apparently at odds with those of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, whose contribution to the Strategic Rail Authority is much appreciated by government, despite his occasionally different approach.
The Government believe that the major change advocated today to Railtrack's ownership, operation and accountability is not necessary to ensure that the company meets its public service obligations. We have, as was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, a rigorous and vigilant Rail Regulator to ensure that Railtrack delivers on its licence requirements and does not abuse its monopoly position.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that the regulator might be merged with the SRA, but their roles are different and their jurisdictions do not overlap. The regulator is independent of government while the Strategic Rail Authority is not. That independence was recently underscored by your Lordships in passing the Transport Act 2000. That independence exists in other regulated industries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, outlined some of the Liberal Democrat alternatives; for instance, a sustainable transport authority. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not go into a retrospective analysis of that. In February this year, the Prime Minister made it clear that in order to cure the problems on our railways we look to some of the alternatives supported by the Transport Act 2000. We need proper strategic control; we urgently need more investment; we have created the Strategic Rail Authority to tackle fragmentation and provide strategic leadership; and we are working hard to correct decades of under-investment through our 10-year plan for transport, published last July.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, like him, the Government want stability. Where there has been so much upheaval we look for coherence and we look for growth where there has been decline. When the noble

977
Lord was reading Thomas the Tank Engine I was probably trainspotting at Glasgow Central. I am delighted to say that this year as many people are travelling on the railways as were travelling in 1947 when I first put on my 1940s equivalent of an anorak.
The Government's interest is to ensure that Railtrack implements the national track recovery plan it promised following the disruption from gauge corner cracking and invests in a safer, more punctual and efficient railway. That is backed by our massive £60 billion programme in our 10-year plan. Therefore, the Government are creating the framework to deliver the bigger and better railway. We are doing that, first, by establishing the correct incentive structure and funding arrangements for the industry and, secondly, by providing the right tools and powers to enable its key players to work together effectively to rebuild public confidence in its ability to deliver a safe quality service.
The Government's priorities, like those of many noble Lords here today, are more investment and better management and firm but fair regulation allied to a clear, consistent strategy for that rail renaissance which we all want. In return for our enhanced public subsidies, we demand value for money for the travelling public.
Passengers are at the heart of our policies and they have not been getting the quality of journeys they deserve. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned today's regrettable announcement by Virgin Trains that it will increase some unregulated fares by almost 10 per cent. Although train operators are free to increase unregulated fares, coming on top of the network problems following Hatfield it is a bitter pill for passengers to swallow. Surely it is not the way to attract passengers back to the railways.
The Government look to the SRA to take the lead on these matters. Today I discussed the situation with its chief executive, Mike Grant. As a result, I hope that as a matter of urgency he will be talking to Virgin Trains and asking it to explain itself.
That apart, we expect that the overall situation will continue to improve. That is the point of the 10-year plan, which is primed to start this month, and our role in driving forward the rail recovery programme. Through new legislation, new forms and enhanced levels of investment, and new franchise agreements, the Government are establishing a true public and private partnership working to shared national objectives.
Earlier this week, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a new relationship between the Government and Railtrack. That will enable Railtrack to concentrate on sustaining the existing network and improving its asset stewardship while allowing others to participate in the financing and management of new schemes to expand capacity. The Channel Tunnel rail link, which is on budget and on schedule, is a good
978
example of how such projects could work with external finance, strong management and operational involvement by Railtrack at no extra cost to the taxpayers.
The new pact paves the way for bringing in third-party finance and project delivery skills to supplement Railtrack, starting with the priority major enhancement projects. It will enable the Strategic Rail Authority to create a new project finance and delivery vehicle for the East Coast Main Line and valuable new passenger and freight capacity on that key route. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that we value as highly as she does the need to demonstrate value for money. Through the public/private partnerships we believe that we can set targets and transfer risks on to private sector partners.
This week also witnessed the agreement between the Government and Railtrack on the rephasing of £1.5 billion of grants due to the company under the Rail Regulator's periodic review of its access charges. That will ease Railtrack's current financial problems. There is no new money here since the company has already accepted that the immediate costs arising from Hatfield and the subsequent network disruption must be borne by shareholders. In those deals there will be some comfort for my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds who asked about the contractual arrangements in relation to maintenance. Those will be longer term and certainly better integrated into the supply chain management, which the industry appears to have dismantled in recent times. There will be a strengthening of the engineering presence not only on the board but at senior management level, and there will also be a public interest director appointed in consultation with government.
The SRA's refranchising programme has also taken a major step forward this week with the announcement of the preferred bidder for the new South West Trains franchise and the agreement with Chiltern—ahead of finalising the replacement franchise—of new trains and services, with tougher incentives for performance and customer satisfaction. As part of that agreement, the Government have undertaken to make up the difference between the level of access income from freight assumed in the regulator's October determination of passenger access charges and the final outcome of his review of freight charges, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley welcomed earlier. Today, Tom Winsor has published his provisional conclusions on freight charges. He proposes a halving of what Railfreight paid to Railtrack last year. The figure will be reduced to £82 million compared with £162 million at present.
The document offers the industry a framework for long-term stability of freight access charges which will promote strong and sustainable growth in rail freight. Together with the SRA, we shall study those proposals very carefully. I also join my noble friend Lord Berkeley in welcoming the fact that we have put in place a framework for the industry to enable all its key

979
players to work together to deliver the 10-year plan which promises 50 per cent passenger growth and 80 per cent freight growth.
We are investing in the Government's vision of a national railway in which today's highest standards become the norm. The Government believe that their focus on safety, incentives, performance and delivery will ensure that the industry is run in the public interest as part of an integrated transport system. Obviously, the Government will try to enable the partnership,
980
strategy and, above all, the investment to complete the job that they have begun. This week's general statement of principles between government and Railtrack marks a further stage in taking that forward.
Prior to Hatfield the railways had their best opportunity in over 50 years to change and grow. Our announcements this week show that that opportunity has not gone away. Our long-term goal remains to make the most of it through the 10-year plan.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.